Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1609 (GUJ)

Amrutbhai Mathurbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat

2022-11-24

NIRZAR S.DESAI

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “[A] Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order and/or direction declaring that the Petitioner is entitled to all the benefits of all the Pay Revisions with Higher Grade Pay Scales, time to time and also the pensionary benefits as mentioned in para 3.4 herein above, and further direct the Respondents to grant all these benefits to the Petitioner, forthwith with appropriate rate of interest. [V] Pending hearing admission and final hearing of this petition, be pleased to direct the Respondents to complete the work of pay fixation as mentioned in para 3.4 herein above, and submit the report before this Hon’ble Court. [c] To award the costs of this petition.” 2. In para 3.4 of the petition, the petitioner has stated about his entitlement, as under: “3.4 The Petitioner states and submits that his entitlement for pay revisions and three tier pay scales are as under: A That he is entitled for the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 w.e.f. 1.1.1986, as per G.C.S. (Revision of Pay) Rules, 1987. B He is entitled for 1st three tier pay scale w.e.f. 1.7.1993 on completion of 9 years of service as per G.R. dated 16.8.1994. C He is entitled for pay revision as per G.C.S. (ROP) Rules, 1998. D He is entitled for 2nd Three tier Pay Scale w.e.f. 1.7.2004 (on completion of 20 years of service) as per G.R. dated 16.8.1994. E He is entitled for the pay revision as per G.C.S. (ROP) Rules, 2009. F Upon his retirement, after office hours of 31.5.2015, he is entitled for all his pensionary benefits as per Rule 25(x) of G.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 2002, so also Regulation 26 of Gujarat Secondary Education Regulations, 1974. All these benefits have been denied to him without any cogent reason”. 3. Heard Mr.R.V.Deshmukh, learned advocate for the petitioner and Ms.Jeenal Acharya, learned Assistant Government Pleader for State respondents. 4. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition can be briefly summarized as under. 4.1 The petitioner is having qualification of B.Com., B.Ed. and was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher in Higher Secondary Section of Government aided minority educational institution called Janta Vidhyalaya on 1.7.1984. 4. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition can be briefly summarized as under. 4.1 The petitioner is having qualification of B.Com., B.Ed. and was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher in Higher Secondary Section of Government aided minority educational institution called Janta Vidhyalaya on 1.7.1984. At the relevant point of time, the pay scale of teachers of secondary as well as higher secondary schools was the same in the pay scale of Rs.440-750. Thereafter vide Government Resolution dated 18.1.1989 separate scales were prescribed for teachers of higher secondary schools and higher secondary schools. As per the said Government Resolution, the teachers of secondary schools were entitled for pay scale of Rs.440-750 whereas for higher secondary school teachers it was Rs.550-900. As per the aforesaid Government Resolution, the benefits were to be granted notionally from 1.7.1979 upto 31.12.1985 and from 1.1.1986 onwards the salaries were required to be fixed in the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900. The aforesaid pay scale of Rs.550-900, which was revised by Rs.1640-2900 vide Government Resolution dated 18.1.1989, was made applicable only to the higher school teachers. 4.2 Since the petitioner was not given the benefit of Government Resolution dated 18.1.1989 by placing him under higher pay scale of Rs.1640-2900, he preferred an Application No.109 of 1991 before the Gujarat Higher Secondary Schools Service Tribunal and vide judgment and order dated 4.8.1998 the Tribunal allowed the application preferred by the petitioner and directed the respondents to fix the salary of the petitioner as per the Government Resolution dated 18.1.1989. Accordingly, the petitioner's salary was fixed at a pay scale was fixed at a basic pay of Rs.1700. However, verification of the same was not done by Local Fund Office. In the meantime, some similarly situated teachers directly approached this Court for the same relief by filing Special Civil Application No.3804 of 2002 and allied matters and the learned Single Judge of this Court allowed those petition vide judgment and order dated 30.8.2002 holding that those teachers were entitled to pay scale of Rs.550-900 from their date of appointment and they were required to be given corresponding revised pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 from 1.1.1986. The aforesaid judgment dated 30.8.2002 was challenged before the Division Bench of this Court by filing Letters Patent Appeal No.839 of 2003 and allied matters. However, the aforesaid appeal preferred by the State of Gujarat was dismissed vide order dated 2.7.2004. The aforesaid judgment dated 30.8.2002 was challenged before the Division Bench of this Court by filing Letters Patent Appeal No.839 of 2003 and allied matters. However, the aforesaid appeal preferred by the State of Gujarat was dismissed vide order dated 2.7.2004. Even thereafter the State of Gujarat preferred appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court being S.L.P. [Civil] Nos.10606-10611 of 2005 and all those appeals were dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 7.1.2008. 4.3 In the meantime, the petitioner was declared surplus and was subsequently absorbed as surplus teacher in Sanskar High School, Kapdi Vad, Raipur vide order dated 11.1.2000 passed by the District Education Officer. Even thereafter also, the petitioner was declared surplus from Sanskar High School and was subsequently absorbed in Shri M.H.Vidhyamandir at Dabhoda, District Gandhinagar vide order dated 12.7.2004 passed by the District Education Officer. The petitioner served in the said school till attaining his superannuation on 31.5.2015. 4.4 It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite rendering 31 years of service, he has not been given the benefit of pay revision as per the 5th and 6th pay commission recommendation and benefit of two higher pay scales on completion of 9 years and 20 years of service, and therefore, the petitioner has preferred this petition. 4.5 In the meantime, during the pendency of this petition, co-ordinate Bench has passed a detailed interim order dated 14.6.2018. Paras 4 and 5 thereof read as under: “4. Under the circumstances, the respondents-authorities are directed to send comprehensive revised proposal for fixation of pay in light of the 6th and 7th Pay Commission. While doing so, higher grade pay scale payable to the petitioner is also required to be taken into consideration. The respondents-authorities shall move such proposal to the concerned Competent Authority for getting approval of pay fixation by giving effect of higher grade pay scale, and thereafter, on the basis of the last salary drawn, the final pension amount has to be fixed. 5. The above exercised be undertaken by the respondents-authorities within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order and the outcome of such exercise be placed before this Court on 27.08.2018.” 4.6 Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the State Government considered the case of the petitioner and passed a detailed order dated 14.12.2018 granting most of the benefits to the petitioner. However, according to Mr. However, according to Mr. Deshmukh, learned advocate for the petitioner, the aforesaid order has remained on paper only and it has not been given effect by the State Government and the petitioner has not received a single penny though the order was passed in the year 2018. Vide order dated 14.12.2018, the Deputy Secretary, Education Department observed that the petitioner was an under qualified person, and therefore, his case would be governed by Government Resolution dated 29.4.1992 passed by the Education Department and only 60% of the period of the petitioner’s service will be considered for the purpose of higher pay scale and further directed the school to do the needful in furtherance of the aforesaid order. 4.7 The petitioner is aggrieved by even the aforesaid order dated 14.12.2018 as while passing the order what was considered by the authority was the fact that at the relevant point of time when the petitioner was appointed in the year 1984 the petitioner was under-qualified. According to the stand taken by the authority as per the order dated 14.12.2018 at the time of appointment, the petitioner was required to have a degree of B.Ed. along with 7 years experience. Though at the time of appointment, the petitioner was possessing the degree of B.Ed. he did not possess the prescribed experience which he acquired by working, and therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to get the pay scale of Rs.550-900 and accordingly he cannot be given the corresponding pay scale in the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 and even the other benefits of time scale promotion and all other pay revisions also can be given only after the petitioner acquired the necessary qualification on completion of 7 years experience. In other words, all the financial benefits of pay revision and time scale promotion that the petitioner is claiming from the date of appointment were required to be deferred by 7 years as per the stand taken by the respondent authorities, which would caused a great monetary loss to the petitioner. 5. In other words, all the financial benefits of pay revision and time scale promotion that the petitioner is claiming from the date of appointment were required to be deferred by 7 years as per the stand taken by the respondent authorities, which would caused a great monetary loss to the petitioner. 5. Mr.R.V.Deshmukh, learned advocate for the petitioner, submitted that whether the petitioner at the time of initial appointment was entitled to the pay scale of Rs.440-750 or Rs.550-900 has already been decided by a co-ordinate Bench while deciding Special Civil Application No.3804 of 2002 and allied matters, wherein a co-ordinate Bench of this Court held in respect of similarly situated persons that those persons would be entitled to the pay scale of Rs.550-900 from the date of their appointment and not from the date of their acquiring relevant qualification by virtue of their experience and the aforesaid order has attained finality as the State Government challenged the aforesaid order up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same has been confirmed upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that in those petitions, the learned Single Judge directed that from the date of appointment the pay scale of Rs.550-900 be given to those teachers and subsequently from 1.1.1986 they may be given corresponding pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 and all corresponding pay scales. The present petitioner being the similarly situated persons, his case also was required to be considered on the similar line. However, for some extraneous reasons, the case of the petitioner was considered differently and despite the order passed by the Tribunal in the year 1998, the petitioner was not given the benefits as prayed by the petitioner in this petition. Hence, necessary orders are required to be passed by this Court declaring that the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of higher pay scale upon completion of 9 years and 20 years by considering the petitioner's entitlement from the date of his appointment and to direct the respondent authorities to pay higher pay scale as well as revised pay scales by re-fixing the pay of the petitioner by treating the petitioner eligible for higher pay scale from the date of his appointment. 6. Ms.Jeenal Acharya, learned Assistant Government Pleader, vehemently opposed the petition and drew attention of the Court to the Government Resolution dated 28.10.1975. 6. Ms.Jeenal Acharya, learned Assistant Government Pleader, vehemently opposed the petition and drew attention of the Court to the Government Resolution dated 28.10.1975. She submitted that at the time of appointment, the petitioner was required to possess the qualification of B.Ed. along with 7 years experience. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that as at the time of appointment the petitioner was not having experience and the petitioner acquired the experience upon completing 7 years service, the petitioner’s entitled for any higher pay scale or any other pay revision would start only after 7 years from the date of his appointment, and therefore, no benefits of any higher pay scale or pay revision be granted to the petitioner by considering eligibility of the petitioner for higher pay scale and time scale promotion from his date of initial appointment. 6.1 Ms. Acharya, learned Assistant Government Pleader, drew attention of this Court and submitted that the petitioner's case was considered objectively by the State authorities and by taking into consideration the order dated 14.6.2018 passed by this Court during the pendency of the petition and thereafter a reasoned order taking into consideration all the aspects as well as the petitioner's qualification and relevant Government Resolution has been considered by the authority, and therefore, once that order redresses the grievance of the petitioner, no further grievance of the petitioner survives now. 6.2 Learned Assistant Government Pleader though vehemently opposed the petition, she could not point out from the order dated 30.8.2002 passed by the learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No.3804 of 2002 and allied matters or any subsequent orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court or by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the case of the petitioner stands on a different footing and facts of the case of the petitioner can be differentiated from the facts of case of those petitioners. By making the aforesaid submissions, learned Assistant Government Pleader prayed for dismissal of the petition. 7. I have heard learned advocate for the parties and perused the record of the case. On perusal of the record what transpires is the fact that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1984. At that time, the appointment of the higher secondary teachers was governed by the Government Resolution dated 28.10.1975 and at that time the requirement was either to possess masters degree or to possess degree of B.Ed. On perusal of the record what transpires is the fact that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1984. At that time, the appointment of the higher secondary teachers was governed by the Government Resolution dated 28.10.1975 and at that time the requirement was either to possess masters degree or to possess degree of B.Ed. along with 7 years experience. At the relevant point of time, the petitioner was possessing B.Ed. degree but was not having any experience at the time when the petitioner was appointed, and therefore, if only the Government Resolution dated 28.10.1975 is considered, in that case there is some force in the argument of learned Assistant Government Pleader. The aforesaid Government Resolution dated 28.10.1975 was considered by co-ordinate Bench of this Court while deciding Special Civil Application No.3804 of 2002 and allied matters in the case of Ushaben Lallubhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat, and in paragraphs 2 to 5 of the common oral judgment dated 30.8.2002, it is observed as under: “2. The petitioners are teachers in the higher secondary schools who are appointed as such after 1.7.1979. The petitioners were appointed as teachers in the higher secondary schools in the pay-scale of Rs.550-900 with effect from the date of appointment. The controversy in the present group of petitions is that the Commissioner of Higher Education has sought to reduce the petitioners' present salary on the ground that the petitioners were not entitled to get salary in the pay-scale of Rs.550-900 with effect from the date of their appointment, but they were entitled to salary in the lower scale of Rs.440-750 because the petitioners did not possess the requisite qualifications for appointment as higher secondary teachers. 3. As per the Government stand, the Government Resolution dated 28.10.1975 prescribing new pattern of education of 10 + 2 also laid down the minimum qualifications for teachers in the higher secondary schools in the following terms :- "Trained teachers having Second Class Master's Degree in respective subject or Trained graduate teachers who have experience of teaching concerned subject for about 7 years in stds. X & XI shall be eligible to teach in the Higher Secondary Classes." Since the petitioners did not possess the aforesaid prescribed qualifications at the time of their respective appointments, the petitioners were not entitled to get salary in the scale of Rs.550-900. X & XI shall be eligible to teach in the Higher Secondary Classes." Since the petitioners did not possess the aforesaid prescribed qualifications at the time of their respective appointments, the petitioners were not entitled to get salary in the scale of Rs.550-900. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner did subsequently acquire qualifications after being appointed as higher secondary teachers after 1.7.1979. The Commissioner of Higher Education is of the view that the petitioners are entitled to get salary in the scale of Rs.550-900 only from the date of acquiring the higher qualification or the experience as provided by the Government resolution dated 20.10.1975. 4. On the other hand, the petitioners have heavily relied on the Government Resolution dated 8.12.1989 read with the Government Resolution dated 18.1.1989 which are annexed to the petition at Annexures "C" and "B" respectively. The aforesaid resolutions have narrated in their preamble that when 10 + 2 pattern was introduced in the State with effect from June, 1976, the requisite qualification for appointment of secondary teachers was only trained graduates whereas for higher secondary teachers, the qualification prescribed was second class Master's degree plus trained graduate (i.e. B.Ed.) or trained graduates with seven years teaching experience in the subject. However, the pay-scale for higher secondary teachers as well as secondary teachers was common i.e. Rs. 440-750. Subsequently, the secondary teachers who had completed 15 years service as on 1.7.1979 were granted the pay-scale of Rs.500-900 in lieu of selection grade subject to certain conditions, one of the conditions being that the salary in the higher pay-scale was to be only notionally fixed for the period from 1.7.1979 to 31.3.1985 and no actual payment was to be made. As far as the higher secondary teachers are concerned, they were to be paid salary in the scale of Rs.550- 900 with effect from the date of their appointment on notional basis and thereafter their salary was to be fixed in the corresponding revised pay-scale of Rs.1640-2900 with effect from 1.10.1986. As far as the higher secondary teachers are concerned, they were to be paid salary in the scale of Rs.550- 900 with effect from the date of their appointment on notional basis and thereafter their salary was to be fixed in the corresponding revised pay-scale of Rs.1640-2900 with effect from 1.10.1986. The Government had accordingly resolved in the aforesaid resolution dated 18.1.1989 that the higher secondary teachers who were appointed after 1.7.1979 were to get their pay fixed in the scale of Rs.550- 900 on notional basis and those who were appointed earlier were to get their pay notionally fixed in the scale of Rs.500-900 for the period from 1.7.1979 to 31.3.1985 and on that basis the pay in the corresponding revised pay-scale of Rs.1640-2900 was to be fixed from 1.1.1986. That resolution, however, created some dissatisfaction amongst the higher secondary teachers as the auditors raised objection to the higher secondary teachers having their pay fixed in the scale of Rs.550-900, if the qualification possessed by the teachers was less than the prescribed qualification. It was in that context that the Government issued Resolution dated 8.12.1989 (Annexure "C") that the teachers with less than the prescribed qualification (laghu laykatwala) in the higher secondary classes were to get their pay fixed in the scale of Rs.550- 900 for the period from 1.7.1979 to 31.12.1985 if their appointment was prior to 1.7.1979 and with effect from the date of appointment if their appointment was after 1.7.1979 and on that basis the pay in the revised pay-scale of Rs.1640-2900 was to be fixed with effect from 1.1.1986. It may also be added at this stage that the Government had issued various resolutions between 1975 and 1989 fixing time limit for the higher secondary teachers possessing qualification of trained graduates (for instance B.A., B.Ed.) for acquiring the higher qualification or the additional experience of seven years and the Commissioner of Higher Education also does not dispute this fact that the higher secondary teachers were granted such time to acquire higher qualification or additional experience. There is no dispute about the fact that all the petitioners acquired the higher qualification or the additional experience within the prescribed time limit. There is no dispute about the fact that all the petitioners acquired the higher qualification or the additional experience within the prescribed time limit. The respondents, however, are not in a position to point out any resolution or circular prescribing that the pay of the higher secondary teachers will not be fixed in the scale of Rs.550-900 with effect from the date of appointment (i.e. after 1.7.1979), but their pay will be fixed in the scale of Rs.550-900 only upon acquiring the higher qualification or the additional experience. The running theme throughout various Government resolutions issued after 1975 is that in view of the fact that the teachers possessing the qualification prescribed in the resolution of 1975 were not available, the teachers possessing the qualification for the post of teacher in the secondary schools but not possessing the qualification of higher secondary teacher may be granted time to acquire the higher qualification or the additional experience. 5. In fact, the petitioners had earlier approached this Court when they were required to file representations before the Commissioner of Higher Education and in those representations also the petitioners had declared that there were 123 other teachers who were granted similar benefit of fixation in the pay-scale of Rs.550- 900 from the date of their appointment till 31.12.1985 even though they did not possess the requisite qualification at the time of their appointment. That contention has been dealt with in the impugned decision dated 9.1.2002 at Annexure "G" by observing that the appointment of the other teachers with less qualification was approved by the Commissioner of Higher Education and that in case of the petitioners such approval or sanction was not obtained.” 7.1 In paras 8 and 9 of the above judgment, the learned Single Judge observed as under: “8. Apart from the fact that the Commissioner of Higher Education has not taken any such stand in the impugned order dated 9.1.2002, the fact remains that the petitioners were appointed after 1.7.1979 and there is nothing in the Government Resolution dated 8.12.1989 prescribing that the teachers appointed after 1.7.1979 were required to exercise any option. Apart from the fact that the Commissioner of Higher Education has not taken any such stand in the impugned order dated 9.1.2002, the fact remains that the petitioners were appointed after 1.7.1979 and there is nothing in the Government Resolution dated 8.12.1989 prescribing that the teachers appointed after 1.7.1979 were required to exercise any option. Be that as it may, when the 123 other higher secondary teachers have been granted the benefit of pay fixation in the scale of Rs.550-900 without possessing the qualification prescribed by the Government Resolution of 1975 at the time of their appointment and some of them have not acquired the prescribed qualification even till date and the petitioners have already acquired the prescribed qualification, merely because the concerned managements (where the petitioners were appointed) did not seek approval of the Commissioner for Higher Education for making the petitioners' appointment, the petitioners are not required to be penalized when the appointment was made through a selection committee where the Government representatives were present and the appointment was approved by the District Education Officer. Further more, when the Commissioner of Higher Education was the authority who was supposed to consider the question of approval, the Commissioner could as well have considered this question at the hearing afforded to the petitioners pursuant to this Court's order - whether there was any infirmity in the petitioners' appointment. No such infirmity has been pointed out either in the impugned order or at the hearing of the petitions. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the petitions succeed and the impugned order dated 9.1.2002 at Anenxure "G" to the petition is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to grant the petitioners the benefit of pay fixation in the scale of Rs.550-900 with effect from the date of their appointment (which is admittedly after 1.7.1979 in all cases covered by this judgment) till 31.12.1985 and thereafter in the corresponding revised pay-scale of Rs.1640-2900 as on 1.1.1986.” 7.2 Even in the Letters Patent Appeal No.839 of 2003 preferred by the State of Gujarat challenging the judgment dated 30.8.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.3804 of 2002 and allied matters, Division Bench of this Court in para 6 of order dated 2.7.2004 observed as under: “6. Giving careful consideration to the matter, we are of the opinion that the petitioners were appointed obviously because their services were needed for teaching in higher secondary schools. Therefore, permission should have been sought by the management and in case it was not sought, the default is of the management and not of the petitioners. Even otherwise, seeking permission is regulatory and not mandatory. Simply because permission was not sought by the management, petitioners cannot be deprived of the benefit of the Government Resolution dated December 8, 1989 particularly when similarly placed teachers have been extended this benefit, may be on the footing that in their cases, permission was sought from the competent authority by the managements. Therefore, petitioners are entitled to pay scale of Rs.550-900 from the date of their appointment notionally till 31.12.1985. Thereafter, they be fixed in the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 with effect from 1.1.1986. Therefore, direction of the learned Single Judge in para-9 referred to hereinabove, is modified to the extent that the petitioners would be fixed in the pay scale of Rs.550-900 with effect from the date of their appointment notionally, thereafter fixed in the pay scale of Rs.1640- 2900 from 1.1.1986. No further point arose for consideration between the parties in this group of Letters Patent Appeals and therefore, this group of Appeals stand allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.” 7.3 Even against the aforesaid order when the State of Gujarat preferred appeals being S.L.P. [C] Nos.10606-10611 of 2005, the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 7.1.2008 dismissed the appeals preferred by the State of Gujarat. 7.4 When a coordinate Bench of this Court by taking note of Government Resolution dated 28.10.1975 held that the petitioners of those petitions were entitled to the pay scale of Rs.550-900 and also by taking note of the fact that there are so many other untrained teachers also who have been given the pay scale of Rs.550-900 and the same was required to be revised from 1.1.1986 in the pay scale of Rs.1640- 2900 and as learned Assistant Government Pleader could not point out that the case of the petitioner stands on a different footing and the aforesaid judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present petition, the controversy in question is required to be viewed by taking into consideration the aforesaid judgment. 7.5 While deciding the case of Ushaben Lalubhai Patel (supra), the learned Singer Judge categorically held that the petitioners of those petitions would be entitled to the benefits of higher pay scale of Rs.550-900 from the date of their appointment and hence even the present petitioner is also would be entitled to the benefits, as claimed by the petitioner from the date of his appointment i.e. the pay scale of Rs.550-900 initially, and thereafter corresponding pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 from 1.1.1986 by treating the period between his date of appointment and 31.12.1985 as notional. 7.6 The stand taken by the respondent authorities while passing the order dated 14.12.2018 that the petitioner can be said to be an untrained teacher as he did not acquire the qualification at the time of his appointment and qualification was acquired subsequently while serving, and therefore, the stand taken by the State Government that for the period during which the petitioner served as untrained teacher, 60% of that period be counted for the purpose of higher pay scale, is absolutely unjustified, and therefore, the said is required to be modified accordingly. 7.7 In view of that since the stand taken by the respondents while considering the case of the petitioner while passing order dated 14.12.2018 is unjustified, the respondents are directed to refix the petitioner's pay scale by taking into consideration the petitioner’s entire service from the date of appointment and treat him as qualified teacher and accordingly the petitioner’s pay scale and time scale promotions are required to be refixed. 8. In view of the above discussion, the petitioner is held entitled to the higher pay scale at Rs.550-900 from the date of his appointment i.e. 1.7.1984 and the respondents are directed to refix the petitioner's pay w.e.f. 1.7.1984 by treating the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs.550-900 from 1.7.1984 till 31.12.1985 during the period between 1.7.1984 to 31.12.1995 the petitioner may be given notional benefits of subsequent Government Resolution dated 18.1.1989 and the petitioner may be placed in the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and all the benefits arising out of time scale promotions on completion of 9 years and 20 years be counted and calculated from the date of initial appointment of the petitioner i.e. 1.7.1984 and by treating the petitioner a qualified teacher from the date of appointment, all the necessary financial benefits viz. [a] 1st three tier pay scale w.e.f. 1.7.1993 on completion of 9 years of service as per G.R. dated 16.8.1994, [b] pay revision as per G.C.S. (ROP) Rules, 1998, [c] 2nd Three tier Pay Scale w.e.f. 1.7.2004 (on completion of 20 years of service) as per G.R. dated 16.8.1994, [d] pay revision as per G.C.S. (ROP) Rules, 2009, and [e] all pensionary benefits as per Rule 25(x) of G.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 2002, so also Regulation 26 of Gujarat Secondary Education Regulations, 1974, be granted to the petitioner. 8.1 The respondents are directed to carry out the exercise of re-fixation of pay of the petitioner on the basis of the aforesaid observations within a period of three months from today and pay the entire amount as per the entitlement of the petitioner as per the re-fixed salary within a period of four weeks thereafter. 8.2 In the petition it is stated that the petitioner has superannuated w.e.f. 31.5.2015, however, most of the retiral benefits are not paid to the petitioner and even final pension has not been fixed and paid to the petitioner as stated by learned advocate for the petitioner. Therefore, the respondents are directed to pay the entire amount, including the fixation and payment of arrears of pension to the petitioner within a period of sixteen weeks from today, which includes twelve weeks (three months) for the purpose of re-fixation of petitioner’s salary and this amount shall carry an interest @6% p.a. which also shall be paid during that period. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present petition is allowed. Rule is made to the aforesaid extent. However, there shall be no order as to costs.