ORDER : 1. Admit. Learned advocates waive service of notice of admission for and on behalf of the respective respondents. 2. At the outset, learned Additional Advocate General Ms. Luvkumar appearing for the appellant authority has pointed out the order passed by the Apex Court dated 22.03.2024 in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 6378 of 2024 and has submitted that after the said SLP was dismissed, the State has framed a policy dated 12.08.2024 through the Finance Department i.e. GR No. EJF-102023-41-CH regulating arrears of retired employees as per the settled legal proposition enunciated by the Apex Court in the various judgments. She has submitted that the State was constrained to frame such policy as there are various writ petitions, which have been filed belatedly by the employees claiming the benefit of one increment. She has submitted that as per the said policy, the arrears are restricted to the period of 3 years in those cases where the employees have assailed the non-grant of increments after filing the writ petition beyond the period of 3 years. 3. Learned Additional Advocate General has referred to the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases, which are referred in the Government Resolution. The same are as under: (i) State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Amar Nath Goyal and Ors. (2005) 6 SCC 754 (ii) State of Bihar and Ors. Vs. Bihar Pensions Samaj, (2006) 5 SCC 65 (iii) State of Tripura and Ors. Vs. Anjana Bhattacharjee and Ors. 2022 SCC Online SC 1071 4. Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that looking to the number of writ petitions, which are filed before this Court and also directions issued therein, it became necessary for the State Government to frame the policy as the State Government is facing huge financial burden. It is also submitted that all the employees, who have approached this Court subsequently, by filing various writ petitions, were sitting on fence and hence, they cannot be conferred the arrears of one increment from the date of retirement, after they have approached this Court belatedly. 5. Learned Additional Advocate General has further pointed out the observations recorded by the learned Single Judge in Paragraph No. 13 of the impugned judgment and order. 5. Learned Additional Advocate General has further pointed out the observations recorded by the learned Single Judge in Paragraph No. 13 of the impugned judgment and order. It is submitted that in fact, at the relevant time, there was no policy framed by the State Government regulating the arrears however, since the State has now framed the policy dated 12.08.2024, the observations made by the learned Single Judge that “........a policy which contemplates denial to employees of their legitimate dues probably may not stand the test of legal scrutiny.” will impede the State Government. It is submitted that the issue of restricting the arrears to 3 years from the date of filing of the writ petition, is not examined either by the learned Single Judges or Division Benches of this Court and hence, the same is required to be examined in light of the policy dated 12.08.2024. Thus, it is urged that the present appeal may be allowed. 6. Learned advocate Ms.Kruti Shah appearing for the respondent-employee has submitted that the present employee cannot be denied the right of entitlement of the arrears when he retired, even if he has approached this Court by filing the writ petition belatedly. She has submitted that the Division Bench, in the similar issue, has rejected Letters Patent Appeal No. 792 of 2024 vide order dated 01.08.2024. She has further submitted that the action of the State Government in framing the policy would be discriminating in nature and there would be some other employees, who would have already been conferred the benefits, whereas the present respondent-employee, who was only armed with the similar orders, cannot be denied arrears from the actual date of his retirement. She has referred to the judgment dated 22.09.2020 passed in the Writ Application No. 645 of 2020 by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Yogendra Singh Bhadauria & Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.) and has submitted that similar contention was raised therein and it was rejected and in the said judgment, various judgments passed by the other High Courts were considered. It is submitted that the Apex Court vide judgment dated 11.04.2023 in the case of The Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL and Ors. Vs. C.P. Mundinamani and Ors. It is submitted that the Apex Court vide judgment dated 11.04.2023 in the case of The Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL and Ors. Vs. C.P. Mundinamani and Ors. has approved the various judgments of the other High Courts, including one passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Yogendra Singh Bhadauria & Ors. (supra). 7. In response to the aforesaid submission, learned advocate Ms. Shah has also referred to the decision dated 03.04.2024 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Civil Application (for condonation of delay) No. 1779 of 2024 in F/Letters Patent Appeal No. 7347 of 2024 and has submitted that the Coordinate Bench has recorded that the issue of grant of arrears is no more res integra and delay was not condoned and the Letters Patent Appeal was rejected at the stage of filing. She has further submitted that in case, this Court takes any contrary view, which has already been expressed by the Division Bench of this Court, the matter may be referred to such bench. In support of her contention, she has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mary Pushpam Vs. Telvi Curusumary & Ors. 2024 Live Law (SC) 12. 8. At this stage, the learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that after the Apex Court has passed the judgment dated 11.04.2023 in the case of C.P. Mundinamani and Ors. (supra), the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, learned Single Judge has passed the order dated 09.08.2023 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2954 of 2021 in the case of Jagdish Singh Sudan Vs. Indraprastha Power Generation Company Limited and has restricted grant of arrears of one annual increment for the period of 3 years from the date of filing of the writ petition, after considering the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of C.P. Mundinamani and Ors. (supra). She has submitted that the State of Maharashtra, through the Finance Department has also framed policy dated 28.06.2023 and has submitted that pursuant to the judgment rendered by the High Court of Judicature of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad in similar issue, the arrears of one increment to the similarly situated employees is restricted for the period of 3 years. She has also referred to the decision dated 29.05.2024 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Dinesh Kumar Sharma Vs. She has also referred to the decision dated 29.05.2024 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Dinesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. and has submitted that after considering the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of C.P. Mundinamani and Ors. (supra), the arrears are restricted for the period of 3 years. 9. We have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length. 10. The issue emanates from various orders passed by this Court as well as various other High Courts dealing with the issue of grant of one increment to those employees who have retired. So far as the entitlement of such increment is concerned, there is no dispute and the parties are ad idem. The only issue is pertaining to restricting the arrears of granting one increment for the period of 3 years from filing of the writ petition. 11. It is the case of the appellant-State that after various judgments were passed by this Court, other employees who are not conferred such benefits, approached this Court by filing the writ petitions claiming similar benefit of grant of one increment and such writ petitions were filed beyond a period of 3 years and in some cases, beyond a period of more than 10 years, after retirement. 12. It appears that the issue with regard to restricting the arrears in those cases where the employees have approached belatedly by filing the writ petition, has not been delved into by any of the Division Bench of this Court. Ultimately, the State filed the SLP (Civil) No. 6378 of 2024 before the Apex Court, which was disposed of by the order dated 22.03.2024. It is the case of the appellant-State that since the State has been financially burdened and as per the settled proposition of law, in case of delay in claiming service benefits by filing writ petitions, the arrears are to be restricted for the period of 3 years. 13. It is also not in dispute that similar issue was raised and examined by the other High Courts. The State placed reliance on the judgments of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, High Court of Delhi at New Delhi and also High Court of Judicature of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad (Maharashtra). 13. It is also not in dispute that similar issue was raised and examined by the other High Courts. The State placed reliance on the judgments of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, High Court of Delhi at New Delhi and also High Court of Judicature of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad (Maharashtra). The State of Maharashtra framed the policy on 28.06.2023 regulating the grant of arrears to those employees, who have approached belatedly by filing the writ petition(s). Taking clue from such policy, and pursuant to the order passed by the Apex Court dated 22.03.2024 in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 6378 of 2024, the appellant-State has also framed the policy dated 12.08.2024, which is placed on record in the present appeal. The relevant clause of the said policy is as under: “Resolution After careful consideration, in superession of the policy made under Government Resolution dated 18.11.2023 cited at serial no. (9), State Government is pleased to frame a policy for the grant of one increment and, resolve that the benefits of one increment for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits will be granted to the employees superannuating on 30th of June, as follows: (1) Eligibility - The benefits for the grant of one increment in terms of sub rule (1) of Rule 39 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pay) Rules, 2002 shall be granted to the employees: (a) who are covered under the State services, panchayats services and those grant-in-aid institutions wherein the Government has extended the benefits of 6th pay commission. (b) (i) who have superannuated on 30th of June during the period commencing from 01.01.2006 to 30.06.2023, having rendered a qualifying service as provided in sub rule (1) of Rule 39 of Gujarat civil Services (Pay) Rules, 2002 in preceding one year. (ii) who have who have superannuated after 30th of June, 2023, having rendered a qualifying service as provided in sub rule (1) of Rule 39 of Gujarat civil Services (Pay) Rules, 2002 in preceding one year from the date of their retirement; (2) Pensionary Benefits to be granted (i) Pension of the employees superannuated on 30th of June during the period commencing from 01.01.2006 to 30.06.2023, shall be revised after considering one increment on the date of superannuation. However, the arrears of the revised pension shall, be paid for a maximum period of 3 (three) years immediately following the date of retirement. However, the arrears of the revised pension shall, be paid for a maximum period of 3 (three) years immediately following the date of retirement. The actual benefit of revised pension shall accrue from 01.07.2023. (ii) this increment as per amended Rule 39(1) will be granted for the purpose of calculating their gratuity and earned leave. (iii) Employees superannuating after 30th of June, 2023, shall be granted revision of pension after considering one increment on the date of retirement, and all benefits shall be given accordingly. By order and in the name of the Governor of Gujarat.” 14. The State Government in the Resolution dated 12.08.2024 has referred to the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of Amar Nath Goyal and Ors. (supra), Bihar Pensions Samaj (supra), and Anjana Bhattacharjee and Ors. (supra), wherein the Apex Court restricted the arrears to the period of 3 years in those cases where the employees have approached the High Court belatedly claiming service benefits. In the order dated 22.03.2024 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 6378 of 2024, the Apex Court has held thus: “1. Delay condoned. 2. We are not inclined to entertain this petition. The special leave petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. 3. Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India, submits that the judgment(s) and order(s) of the learned Single Judge of the High Court, which are not interfered by the learned Division Bench of the High Court on the ground of delay, suffers from a basic flaw that though the policy with regard to payment of arrears was in place, the same was kept in abeyance, but still the learned Single Judge held that there is no policy in place. 4. From the perusal of the materials on record, we do not find that any such policy was in existence on the date on which the judgment was delivered by the learned Single Judge. 5. The learned Solicitor General, at this stage, pressed that the State may be granted liberty to come out with a policy in that regard. 6. Framing of the policy is exclusively within the domain of the Executive. The Executive, if required, can always come out with a policy as deemed fit and proper in the facts of the case. 7. The learned Solicitor General, at this stage, pressed that the State may be granted liberty to come out with a policy in that regard. 6. Framing of the policy is exclusively within the domain of the Executive. The Executive, if required, can always come out with a policy as deemed fit and proper in the facts of the case. 7. We do not find that the judgment of either the learned Single Judge or the Division Bench would come in the way of the State Government in framing the policy within the framework of law as laid down by this Court. 8. The special leave petitions are, accordingly, disposed of. 9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.” 15. In paragraph No. 7, the Apex Court has held that “We do not find that the judgment of either the learned Single Judge or the Division Bench would come in the way of the State Government in framing the policy within the framework of law as laid down by this Court.” 16. Indubitably, the policy dated 12.08.2024 refers to the decision of the Apex Court as mentioned hereinabove restricting the arrears of one increment for the period of 3 years. As on today, the said policy is neither altered or stayed by any Court of law and is in operation. We may at this stage, refer to the observations made by the learned Single Judge in paragraph No. 13 of the judgment and order dated 26.09.2023 passed in the captioned writ petition. The same read as under: “13. In the considered opinion of this Court, as of now, there is no policy decision to pay to the persons like the petitioners benefit of one increment without arrears and whereas on the other hand it would be relevant to mention that the entitlement of the petitioners is not questioned at all. The only question is with regard to payment of arrears and whereas, since unlike other benefits, the benefit of one increment was otherwise required to be paid to the petitioners as and when they had retired more particularly as noted by the Hon’ble Apex Court, payment of increment is concomitant upon the good services rendered by an employee for the whole year. Consequently, if the employee is otherwise entitled to payment of one increment as a mark of the good services rendered by him and whereas, failure on the part of State Authorities to pay the entitlement at the relevant point of time, would not empower the State to contend that non-payment of arrears is within the realm of a policy of the State and that this Court may not interfere. Again, it requires mention that while as on date there is no policy of the State Government whereby persons like the petitioners are denied arrears, nonetheless, it would also require mention that a policy which contemplates denial to employees of their legitimate dues probably may not stand the test of scrutiny.” 17. A fair reading of the observations recorded by the learned Single Judge in paragraph No. 13 manifest that the learned Single Judge has held that the policy, which contemplates denial to employees of their legitimate dues “probably may not stand the test of scrutiny”. In the considered opinion of this Court, such observation was uncalled for as the policy was not in existence on the date when such order was passed. Such observation will always impede the interest of the appellant-State as and when such policy is assailed by the employees before the Court of law. Hence, we are setting aside the observation to such extent, as recorded by the learned Single Judge in paragraph No. 13 of the judgment dated 26.09.2023. 18. It is also not disputed that the cases of the employees like the respondent-employee would be governed by the policy dated 12.08.2024 as declared by the State Government through its Finance Department. So long such policy stands and is neither altered or stayed or set aside, the same will govern the fate of the employees. As held by the Apex court, it is always within the domain of the Executive to come out with the policy in accordance with law. 19. Hence, the appeal is disposed of with the aforenoted observations. 20. At this stage, learned advocate Ms. Kruti Shah has submitted that liberty may be reserved in favour of the respondent-employee to challenge the aforesaid policy since the same will not apply to the respondent-employee. 21. 19. Hence, the appeal is disposed of with the aforenoted observations. 20. At this stage, learned advocate Ms. Kruti Shah has submitted that liberty may be reserved in favour of the respondent-employee to challenge the aforesaid policy since the same will not apply to the respondent-employee. 21. It goes without saying that it is always open for the employees, who is/are aggrieved by the policy dated 12.08.2024, to assail the same by filing appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum. The cases of the employees such as respondent-employee will be governed by the said policy till it stands. It is apparent that this Court has not expressed anything with regard to the validity/legality of the policy dated 12.08.2024.