JUDGMENT : (A.S. Supehia, J.) 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 01.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by appellant-original petitioner. The petitioner has prayed for directions against the respondent authorities to grant higher pay-scale of Rs.8,000-14,050/- from his due date with all consequential benefits including arrears. 2. The petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2004 retired as a Deputy Manager Class II. When it came to the knowledge of the appellant-original-petitioner that his Junior was granted higher pay-scale of Rs.8,000-14,050/- w.e.f on 18.02.2005 vide order dated 11.06.2009, he made a representation on 10.12.2009 to grant the same to him also. It is asserted by the appellant that a proposal was sent by the Director of Accounts-Respondent No.2 on 12.03.2010 to the Finance Department to grant higher pay-scale with effect from 17.02.2002 in view of completion of 15 years of service, after receipt of higher pay-scale. However, he does not have the copy of such proposal. 3. Since nothing was done, ultimately, the appellant-petitioner filed the writ petition being Special Civil Application No.18708 of 2014, which was disposed of as withdrawn vide order dated 22.01.2015, since a direction was issued by the Court to the State authority to take a decision within a period of two months. 4. Vide order dated 04.04.2015, the Respondent No.1 rejected the claim of the appellant of higher pay scale on the ground that he has received three promotions and one higher pay scale, which has been assailed by him in the captioned writ petition. It appears that thereafter, another order was passed on 14.03.2016 by the Finance Department negligibly modifying the order dated 04.04.2015, which is also challenged in the captioned writ petition. The learned Single Judge has found favour on the stand taken by the State Government to the effect that receipt of three promotions and one higher payscale, will disentitle the appellant from second higher payscale. 5. Learned Advocate for the appellant Ms. Harshal N. Pandya, at the outset, has submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Division Bench dated 09.09.2020 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.504 of 2020. 5. Learned Advocate for the appellant Ms. Harshal N. Pandya, at the outset, has submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Division Bench dated 09.09.2020 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.504 of 2020. It is submitted that in similar facts, where the employee who had also received three promotions and first higher pay-scale, the learned Single Judge by the order dated 16.01.2020 passed in Special Civil Application No.10318 of 2018 has held that even if the employees who have received three promotions and one higher pay-scale, they would be entitled to second higher payscale in view of the Resolution dated 02.07.2007, more particularly Paragraph No.2(4)(b). It is submitted that the same has been confirmed by the Division Bench vide 09.09.2020 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.504 of 2020. 6. Learned Advocate Ms. Harshal N. Pandya has submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated the fact that actually after the appellant was granted the first higher pay-scale with effect from 17.08.1997 of Rs.2,000- 3,500/-, he was promoted on the post of Accounts Officer Class-II on 14.09.1994, however, his pay-scale never changed and hence, he would be entitled to second higher pay-scale, after completion of 15 years from the date of the second promotion dated 17.08.1978 similar to that of his junior. It is submitted that this is a vital aspect, which has not been considered by the learned Single Judge and hence, the appeal may be allowed by setting aside the decision of the respondent authorities as well as the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 7. Per contra, learned AGP Mr. Sahil Trivedi has submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not require interference. It is submitted that the case of junior, on which reliance is placed i.e. Shri. I.H. Bandhara, is not similar to that of the appellant as the service details shows that Shri. I.H. Bandara was given the second higher pay-scale after completion of 15 years from the grant of first higher pay-scale and thereafter, he was promoted on the post of the Accounts Officer on 09.03.2007, whereas the present appellant was given the first higher pay-scale with effect from 17.08.1987 and subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Accounts Officer Class II. It is submitted that thus, as per the clarificatory communication dated 04.03.2008 which clarifies Paragraph No.2(4)(b) of the Government Resolution dated 02.07.2007, to the effect that if any employee who has received two promotions and one higher pay-scale, he would be granted the first higher pay-scale, after a period of 15 years and second, after a period of 24 years from the second higher pay-scale. Thus, it is submitted that when the appellant was promoted on the post of Accounts Officer Class II, he would not be entitled to the second higher pay-scale after, completion of 15 years of service from the first higher pay-scale. Thus, it is urged that the order passed by the learned Single Judge may not be interfered with. 8. The facts, which are established from the pleadings, are that the appellant-petitioner had joined the service of the State Government as a Sub Accountant Class-III on 13.02.1968. His Junior Shri.T.N.Thakker was appointed on the same post on 14.09.1972. The appellant is claiming the second higher pay scale at par to his Junior Shri.I.H. Bandara of Rs.8,000- 14,050/-. Their details are as under: Appellant: T.N. Thakkar Junior. I.H. Bandara Sub-Accountant 13.02.1968 14.09.1972 1st. Promo-Dy.-Accountant-Class-III 15.04.1975 19.09.1977 2nd. Promo.-Accountant-Class-III 17.08.1978 18.02.1981 3rd Promo.-Accounts Officer-Class-II 14.09.1994 09.03.2007 2nd Higher Pay scale Not given 01.02.2005 9. Thus, the appellant was promoted as a Deputy Accountant Class-III on 15.04.1975 in the pay-scale of Rs.425- 800/-. On 17.08.1978, he was promoted to the post of Accountant Class-III in the pay-scale of Rs.500-900/-. This was the second promotion. The pay-scale of Rs.500-900/- came to be revised as Rs.1,640-2,900/- pursuant to the 4th Pay Commission. Thereafter, the appellant was granted the first higher pay-scale of Rs.2,000-3,500/- with effect from 17.08.1987 in view of the Policy of the State Government of 9, 8 and 27 years of service. Accordingly, the said entry was made in the Service Book which clearly shows that he was granted the first higher pay-scale of Rs.2,000-3,500/-, with effect from 17.08.1987. It appears that this was granted in view of the Government Policy dated 05.07.1991. After he was granted the higher pay-scale, he was again promoted to the post of Accounts Officer Class II on 14.09.1994. It appears that this was granted in view of the Government Policy dated 05.07.1991. After he was granted the higher pay-scale, he was again promoted to the post of Accounts Officer Class II on 14.09.1994. The entry in his Service Book clearly mentions as “as per Government Resolution issued by the Finance Department and in view of Paragraph (23) of the said Resolution, the appellant would be entitled to higher pay-scale of Rs.2,000-3,500/- from 17.08.1987. Further, since the appellant is already promoted as Class II, having a pay-scale of Rs.2,000-3,500/-, there is no need of re-fixation of pay-scale and his next increment would be 01.04.1995” . This entry in the Service Book reflects that though the appellant has been promoted to the post of Accounts Officer Class II, his pay-scale remained the same to that of the first higher pay-scale. Thus, there was no change in the pay-scale of the appellant, when he was promoted third time on the post of Accounts Officer Class-II, and he remained stagnated in the same pay-scale. 10. Thus, the aforesaid facts suggest that after the appellant was appointed, he got his first promotion on 15.04.1975 as Deputy Accountant Class-III. His second promotion was on 17.08.1978 as Class III and on completion of 9 years of service, he was granted first higher pay-scale of 07.08.1987 of Rs.2,000-3,500/- third time on 14.09.1994 as Accounts Officer Class-II which had the same pay-scale to that of the higher pay-scale i.e. Rs.2,000-3,500/-. Keeping in mind the aforesaid facts, at this stage, we may incorporate the observations made by the Coordinate Bench in an identical case, wherein an employee was granted three promotions and one higher payscale vide order dated 09.09.2020 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.504 of 2020, has held as under :- “2. The learned Single Judge, after considering the relevant Government Resolutions dated 16th August 1994, 2nd July 2007 and other clarifications issued by the Gujarat Maritime Board and the State Government, as also the opinion given by the State Government, came to the conclusion that the writ petitioner (respondent herein) was entitled to the second Higher Grade Scale as per the Government Resolution dated 2nd July 2007 read with earlier Government Resolution dated 16th August 1994. It is admitted fact that the petitioner came to be appointed in 1978, thereafter, got first promotion on 10th December 1984 as Senior Clerk, from the post of Clerk-cum-Typist. It is admitted fact that the petitioner came to be appointed in 1978, thereafter, got first promotion on 10th December 1984 as Senior Clerk, from the post of Clerk-cum-Typist. Thereafter, in 1992, upon completing 9 years of service, he was granted the first Higher Grade Scale. Later on, in 2002, the petitioner was given promotion as Head Clerk in the same Pay Scale which was given to him as Higher Grade Scale in 1992. Thus, it is clear that the Higher Grade Scale given in 1992 and promotion in 2002 are in the same Pay Scale. Even from 1992, the writ petitioner has continued in the same Pay Scale and as such, under the Government Resolution referred above, he was entitled to next Higher Grade Scale after completing 15 years of service which would be available to him in 2007. The learned Single Judge has thus, extended the benefit correctly.” 11. Thus, the Coordinate Bench has held that after promotion, if the higher pay-scale remains the same, the employee would be entitled to the next higher pay-scale after completion of 15 years of service as per the provisions of Government Resolution dated 02.07.2007 read with Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994. The respondent– Under Secretary, Finance Department in the affidavit-in-reply dated 06.08.2016 filed in the captioned writ petition, has categorically stated that when the appellant was promoted to the post of Accounts Officer Class II on 14.09.1994, his payscale has remained the same. Thus, there was no benefit in fact conferred on the appellant except the change of designation from Accounts Officer Class-III to Accounts Officer Class-II as he was paid the first higher pay-scale with effect from 17.08.1987 and even after completion of almost 7 years, when he got the third promotion as Accounts Officer Class II, the pay-scale did not change and remained the same. 12. In the case of the junior of the appellant–Shri.I.H. Bandara, after he was promoted on the post of Deputy Accountant Class-III on 19.09.1977, he was again promoted on 18.02.1981 as Accountant Class-II on completion of 9 years of service. His proposal specifically refers that he got three promotions and one higher pay-scale. Thus, when the proposal of Shri.I.H. Bandara was sent on 16.03.2009, he was granted three promotions and one higher pay-scale. After considering such details, the appellant’s junior was granted higher payscale with effect from 18.02.2005 with retrospective effect from 05.06.2009. His proposal specifically refers that he got three promotions and one higher pay-scale. Thus, when the proposal of Shri.I.H. Bandara was sent on 16.03.2009, he was granted three promotions and one higher pay-scale. After considering such details, the appellant’s junior was granted higher payscale with effect from 18.02.2005 with retrospective effect from 05.06.2009. It is pertinent to note that Shri.I.H. Bandara was granted the second higher pay-scale of Rs.8,000-14,050/- by the order dated 11.06.2009, after his retirement. Both, the appellant and his junior, retired hence, similar benefit was required to be extended to the appellant, which was not done which constrained him to file the writ petition. 13. The policy of the higher pay-scale for the first time was introduced by the State Government by the Resolution dated 05.07.1991, which was available to those employees who remained stagnant for 9, 8 and 27 years in service. Thus, the employee who had remained stagnated for all these years, he would be entitled for first higher pay-scale. The said policy was modified by the Resolution dated 16.08.1994 and it was decided that the effect of the first higher pay-scale would be given from 01.08.1987 and the employee would be entitled for the higher pay-scale, after completion of 9, 8 and 27 years of service. Thereafter, another Resolution dated 02.07.2007 was issued by the State Government by modifying the Resolution dated 16.08.1994. By the said Resolution, the modified scheme of 12 and 24 years of service was introduced. Paragraph No.2(4)(b) of the said Resolution categorically states that if an employee, who has been granted the first higher pay-scale on completion of 9 years of service, as per the Resolution dated 16.08.1994, he would be entitled to the second higher payscale after completion of 15 years of service from grant of the first higher pay-scale. 14. When the appellant pointed out that his junior was offered the second higher pay-scale with effect from 18.02.2005, he requested the respondent authorities to extend him such benefit. The respondent authority has specifically placed reliance on the communication dated 04.03.2008 of the Deputy Secretary, Finance Department clarifying Paragraph No.2(4)(b) of the Resolution dated 02.07.2007. 14. When the appellant pointed out that his junior was offered the second higher pay-scale with effect from 18.02.2005, he requested the respondent authorities to extend him such benefit. The respondent authority has specifically placed reliance on the communication dated 04.03.2008 of the Deputy Secretary, Finance Department clarifying Paragraph No.2(4)(b) of the Resolution dated 02.07.2007. The contents of the said Resolution are translated and reproduced as under :- “Paragraph 2(4)(b) of the Finance Department Resolution dated 02.07.2007 : Whoever have got two promotions and first higher payscale, they would be granted the second higher pay-scale subject to the fulfillment of conditions and entitlement after 15 years, 24 years from the date of grant of first higher pay-scale and those who have completed 12 years and 24 years of service, in view of the said Resolution, they would be granted the higher pay-scale, however provided that they are not granted more than two promotions.” 15. In all the policies of the higher pay-scales, the common thread running through them is that an employee is not entitled to higher pay-scales in case, he has got more than two promotions. The Policy nowhere clarifies or bars an employee from getting higher pay-scales in case, an employee even after getting the second or third promotion remains in the same pay-scale. The policies of the higher pay-scale are introduced to see that a Government employee does not remain stagnated in the same pay-scale for number of years mentioned in such policies. Thus, when the appellant has remained stagnated in the same pay-scale even after grant of first higher pay-scale with effect from 17.08.1987 and also on getting third promotion to the post of Accounts Officer Class-II, he is entitled to second higher pay-scale after completion of 15 years of service in the stagnated pay-scale. The learned Single Judge has ignored this vital aspect, while rejecting the writ petition filed by the appellant. 16. One of the reasons, which has weighed with the learned Single Judge, is delay in filing the writ petition. The appellant retired from services as Deputy Accounts Officer on 31.03.2004. After his junior was granted higher pay-scale vide order dated 11.06.2009, with effect from 18.02.2005, he filed the representation for the first time on 10.12.2009. 16. One of the reasons, which has weighed with the learned Single Judge, is delay in filing the writ petition. The appellant retired from services as Deputy Accounts Officer on 31.03.2004. After his junior was granted higher pay-scale vide order dated 11.06.2009, with effect from 18.02.2005, he filed the representation for the first time on 10.12.2009. Thereafter also, it appears that he did not do anything and ultimately, he filed a writ petition being Special Civil Application No.18708 of 2014, which was also withdrawn on 22.01.2015. The Deputy Secretary, Finance Department finally intimated the appellant that he would not be entitled for the second higher pay-scale as he got three promotions and one higher pay-scale which is impugned in the captioned writ petition. Hence, the delay cannot be ignored while granting arrears. The denial of the higher pay-scale to the appellant is continuing cause of action since he is also getting pension on reduced pay every month. 17. As per the settled legal proposition of law, the denial of pay-scale will be a continuous cause of action however, in case, there is considerable delay in assailing such action, the arrears are to be restricted for a period of three years (vide Union of India vs Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648 ). Thus, the arrears of higher pay-scale are restricted for three years from the date of filing of the writ petition. The respondents are directed to confer the benefit of higher pay-scale of Rs.8,000- 10,450/- which has been extended to his junior after completion of 15 years from the date of grant of the first higher pay-scale. 18. The present Appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge and the orders passed by the respondent authority, which are impugned in the writ petition, are also quashed and set aside. The benefits, as directed by this Court, shall be paid to the appellant within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of the order of this Court, failing which the arrears shall carry an interest of 9% per annum from the date of completion of 8 weeks. As a sequel, the connected Civil Application stands disposed of.