JUDGMENT : VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI, J. 1. When the matter is taken up for hearing, Mr. Pradip D. Bhate, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner is not present. Mr. Manish J. Patel, the learned advocate appearing for the respondents No.2 and 3 has assisted this Court and present petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. This Court has considered the contentions raised by the petitioner herein in the present petition wherein undisputed facts that emerge for consideration of this Court are that the petitioner herein passed SSC and Diploma in Commercial Art and he was appointed as Artists-cum-photographer on 21.06.1973 at Valsad District Panchayat, Valsad District. 3. The petitioner applied for transfer from Valsad District to Sabarkantha District. Upon considering the application of the petitioner which was made as per Rule 3(1)(B) of Gujarat Panchayat Service Transfer of Servants Rules, 1968 the Development Commissioner passed the order dated 16.02.1981 granting transfer to the petitioner from Valsad District to Sabarkantha District. Pursuant to the above order of the Development Commissioner, the respondent No.1 DDO Sabarkantha passed the order on 20.03.1981 posting the petitioner in Sabarkantha District in Family Welfare Department. 4. The petitioner joined Sabarkantha District on 01.04.1981 and was working under the Sabarkantha District Panchayat till his retirement on 29.02.2008 as Assistant-cum-photographer in Family Welfare Department. 5. The petitioner joined the service on 21.06.1973 and retired on 29.02.2008 and completed 9-18-27 years of service during his service tenure and is entitle to receive higher pay scales. 6. The respondent - State issued the Govt. Resolution dated 16.08.1994 granting the higher pay scale on completion of 9- 18-27 years of service. The petitioner was granted First Higher Pay Scale on 01.06.1987 and was entitled for the Second Higher Pay Scale on 27.05.2005. 7. The respondent No.1 by letter dated 18.11.2008 clarified that the petitioner joined service on 01.04.1981 in Sabarkantha District and was granted higher pay scale on 01.06.1987, entitled to get the same from 01.04.1990. 8. The respondent No.1 by letter dated 17.03.2009 directed to the respondent No.2 to grant higher pay scale to the petitioner on the basis of the date of joining service in Sabarkantha district i.e. 01.04.1981, but the petitioner is entitled to higher pay scale from dated 21.06.1973 (from the date of appointment at Valsaid District) and not from the date of 01.04.1981 (from the date of joining Sabarkantha District.). 9. 9. The petitioner herein upon superannuation having not been extended the benefit of Second Higher Pay Scale as per the above Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994 preferred the Special Civil Application No.4838 of 2010 which came to be disposed of by order dated 22.04.2010, while not entertaining the petition, directed the DDO to consider the letter dated 17.03.2009 as per the Government Resolution issued by the State Government on 16.08.1994 and the District Development Officer, Sabarkantha in-turn to implement the same within four months from the date of the order, paragraph-4 of the said order reads thus :- “4. In view of the aforesaid facts and in view of the observation made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Dass Vs. Union of India and Ors reported in AIR 2007 1330, it will not be appropriate to entertain this writ petition. However, if an attempt is made by the petitioner by filing a representation to District Education Officer, Himatnagar, to consider the letter dated 17th March 2009 as per the government resolution issued by the State Government on 16.08.1994, the District Development Officer, Sabarkantha in turn may implement the same within four months from the date of this order.” 10. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner made a detailed representation on 08.07.2010 to the respondent No.2 i.e. DDO requesting to implement the order dated 22.04.2010 passed in the Special Civil Application No.4837 of 2010 and grant higher pay scale to the petitioner as entitled, as per the letter dated 17.03.2009 of the respondent State Government dated 17.3.2009. 11. From perusal of the impugned order, it emerges that by communication dated 8.5.2012 the petitioner’s request for grant of second higher pay scale was declined on the ground that, “thus, higher grade pay has been granted without considering the rules prevailing as on dated 26-10-1994. Though, as per Resolution dated 15-07-2004 of General Administrative Department, Mr. Patel should have been transferred to his original district, he had not been transferred to his original district till his retirement on superannuation on 29-02-2008. Thus, Mr. Patel has been granted first higher grade pay by not considering the relevant government proceedings, permission is not given to grant second higher pay scale. The Finance Department has been consulted. Patel should have been transferred to his original district, he had not been transferred to his original district till his retirement on superannuation on 29-02-2008. Thus, Mr. Patel has been granted first higher grade pay by not considering the relevant government proceedings, permission is not given to grant second higher pay scale. The Finance Department has been consulted. Further, it is requested to send the details to this department at the earliest as to whether the responsibility of employee/officer has been determined for not conducting proceedings for granting higher pay scale to Mr. Patel?” 12. The petitioner was required to be transferred to the original district and in view of the aforesaid, the petitioner was not entitled for grant of the second higher scale. 13. Mr. Manish J. Patel, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent authority submits that in line with the order passed in the Special Civil Application No.1446 of 1994 the respondent authority forwarded proposal to the State Government, however the same is declined by order dated 8.5.2012. 14. Ms. Suman Motla, the learned AGP appearing for the respondent – State submitted that since the petitioner was never reverted to his original district and in view thereof the benefit of second higher scale is rightly declined to the petitioner herein. 15. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, it emerges that the petitioner herein joined the service of the respondent No.2 as Artist-cum-Photographer on 21.6.1973 and on superannuated on 29.2.2008. The petitioner completed 9-18-27 years of service which is not in dispute and in view thereof the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of higher pay-scale in accordance with law and Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994. The petitioner herein sought transfer from Valsad District to Sabarkantha District and joined Sabarkantha District on 1.4.1981. Till the date of retirement the petitioner imparted service at Sabarkantha District. The aforesaid is not in dispute. 16. It is apposite to refer to the position of law, as referred to at page-55 in the Special Civil Application No.1446 of 1994 and allied matters judgment dated 12.3.2000, paragraph-14 reads thus :- “14. For the reasons stated above, all the petitions succeed. The aforesaid is not in dispute. 16. It is apposite to refer to the position of law, as referred to at page-55 in the Special Civil Application No.1446 of 1994 and allied matters judgment dated 12.3.2000, paragraph-14 reads thus :- “14. For the reasons stated above, all the petitions succeed. It is held that all the petitioners who were transferred on their request transfer are entitled to get benefit of higher grade pay scale considering 9 years / 18 years counting their seniority from the date of their initial appointment i.e. (period prior to their request transfer also) and concerned respondents are directed to grant benefit of higher grade pay scale to the respective petitioners in accordance with law and scheme considering their total seniority from the date of their initial appointment i.e. counting seniority / period prior to their request transfer. Any recovery by any of the respondents by holding that such petitioners are entitled to seniority for the purpose of granting benefit of higher grade from the date of their joining transfer place is hereby quashed and set aside. If any of the petitioners are not granted benefit of higher grade pay scale on the ground that they have not completed nine years of service (ignoring their past service), to be given benefit of higher grade pay scale by the concerned respondents considering their past seniority (prior to their request transfer) and necessary calculations and actual payment should be made within 3(three) months from today. Rule is made absolute in each of the petitions. In the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.” 17. In view of the aforesaid undisputed facts and position of law, as referred above, in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the respondent authority is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of second higher pay-scale in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 26.10.1994 without relying to the communication which is produced at page-43 dated 8.5.2012, in view of the fact that the petitioner herein was serving at Sabarkantha district till the age of superannuation continuously and was not posted to the original district Valsad, cannot be a reason for not grant/denial of the second higher pay-scale. The aforesaid anomaly can be said to be at the instance of the respondent authority for which the continuous service rendered by the petitioner herein is required to be considered in the aforesaid manner. 18. For the aforesaid reasons, the present petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute.