Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 2070 (GUJ)

Karsanbhai Becharbhai Degama v. State Of Gujarat

2024-11-25

VAIBHAVI D.NANAVATI

body2024
JUDGMENT : Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, J. 1. Heard Mr.Dharmesh Shah, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners and Ms.Suman Motla, learned A.G.P. appearing for the respondent nos.1 and 2. 2. By way of the present petition, the petitioners herein have prayed for the following reliefs:- “(A) Your Lordship may be pleased to admit and allow this petition. (AA) To expunge the condition no.3 and 4 of the GR dt.12.10.2022 qua not granting the arrears of higher pay scale as per 6th pay revision to the petitioners and further directing the respondents to pay arrears of 1st higher pay scale as per 6th pay revision with 8% interest. (B) Your Lordship may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent authority to grant the 1st higher pay grade to the petitioner being payscale of the promotional post (Rs.5000-8000) on completion of 9 years of service to petitioner instead of pay scale (Rs.4500-7000) with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice. (C) Pending admission hearing and final disposal of present matter, YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to call for the report of grievance raised in the representation by the petitioner in the interest of justice.” 3. The petitioners herein have challenged the action on the part of the respondents for wrong grant of first higher grade pay-scale of Rs.4000-7000 upon completion of 9 years to the concerned teachers as per chart, instead of pay-scale of promotional post of Rs.5000- 8000. The petitioners herein are the primary teachers employed by the respondent no.4 and have been working with various schools run by the respondent no.4. Under the Revision of Pay Rules, 1987, the pay-scale of primary teachers was Rs.1200-2040. The petitioners’ pay-scale was accordingly fixed in the said pay-scale. Upon coming into force of Revision of Pay Rules, 1997 with effect from 01.01.1996, the petitioners’ scale was revised to Rs.4000- 6000. Upon completion of 9 years, the first higher pay-scale of Rs.4500-7000 was granted to the concerned teachers and thereafter, upon completion of 20 years, the second higher payscale was also granted. By resolution dated 12.03.2004, the Surendranagar Nagarpalika School Board was merged in the District Panchayat Surendernagar and on 30.04.2003, the District Panchayat Education Samiti passed an order to accept the order of the State Government. Since then, the petitioners are working under the District Panchayat at Surendranagar. By resolution dated 12.03.2004, the Surendranagar Nagarpalika School Board was merged in the District Panchayat Surendernagar and on 30.04.2003, the District Panchayat Education Samiti passed an order to accept the order of the State Government. Since then, the petitioners are working under the District Panchayat at Surendranagar. The appointment order of the petitioners dated 13.12.1989, the first higher grade order dated 06.07.2009, the second higher grade order dated 30.06.2012, government resolution dated 12.03.2004 and the order dated 30.04.2003 are duly produced at Annexure-B collectively to the petition. The respondent – State issued a circular dated 16.08.1994 wherein, the respondent – State declared the scheme of amended higher pay grade scale, particularly condition no.3.2 whereby, it was declared that the first higher pay grade scale can be granted for the next promotional post pay-scale and in the case of the petitioners, the school board was not granted and due to such discriminatory treatment by the respondent – authority, the petitioners working under the municipal school board were getting the said pay-scale upon completion of 20 years, which has resulted into heavy loss to the petitioners. The communication dated 25.06.2015 was issued by the respondent no.2 to all the district and municipal school boards to fill up the post of Keni/education supervisor (promotional post). So far as the Surendranagar District School Board is concerned, there are six sanctioned promotional posts available. Despite the aforesaid, the petitioners were denied the higher pay grade for the promotional post of Keni/education supervisor upon completion of 9 years of service. 4. Mr.Dharmesh Shah, learned advocate relied upon the aforesaid facts and submitted that an identical issue has been decided by this Court in Special Civil Application No.15307 of 2003 and allied matters. Copy of the same is duly produced at Annexure- F. It is submitted that the aforesaid was the subject matter of challenge by filing Letters Patent Appeal by the respondent – State being Letters Patent Appeal No.240 of 2017 and allied matters, which came to be rejected. It is submitted that in light of the aforesaid position of law, the petitioners made several representations to the respondent - authority on 14.03.2017, 19.04.2018 and 16.08.2019 to consider the case of the petitioners and extend the same benefits. 4.1. It is submitted that the respondent – State has also implemented the aforesaid order passed in the said Letters Patent Appeal by granting higher pay-scale of Rs.5000-8000. 4.1. It is submitted that the respondent – State has also implemented the aforesaid order passed in the said Letters Patent Appeal by granting higher pay-scale of Rs.5000-8000. It is submitted that the petitioners herein are identically placed and in view thereof, seek the same reliefs, as granted in the aforesaid matter. 5. Ms.Suman Motla, learned A.G.P. appearing for the respondent – State has placed on record the communication dated 14.10.2024 addressed by the Deputy Education Director to the Deputy Secretary, (Primary Education). Placing reliance on the said communication, this Court is taken to page 3 of the said communication whereby, the names of the petitioners are included in the said list and it is submitted that appropriate decision will be taken in accordance with the ratio laid down in Special Civil Application No.4685 of 2020 and allied matters. 6. Considered the submissions advanced by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 7. It is apposite to refer to paragraphs 3.1.1 to 3.1.16 of the order dated 02.07.2024 passed in said Special Civil Application No.4685 of 2020. “3. Mr. U.M. Shastri, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.2, on instructions, submits that the promotional post is available. ANALYSIS: 1.1. The question is with respect to whether the State Government was justified in restricting the grant of benefits of higher pay-scale in the pay-scale of Rs.5,000- 8,000 revised to Rs.9,300 – 34,800, by directing the period from the date of entitlement to the date of the Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994 as being treated notionally. 1.2. On perusal of the government resolution, more particularly, on perusal of the explanation rendered, it appears that the respondent – State was conscious of the fact that there exists serious anomaly in the matter of grant of first higher grade to Primary Teachers in various Municipal School Boards and in view thereof, the respondent – State Government came up with the government resolution dated 16.08.1994. 1.3. The government resolution dated 12.10.2022 holds that from 01.01.1996 to ensure equality amongst the Primary Teachers in Municipal School Boards, the benefit of 1st higher grade pay would be in the payscale of Rs.5,000-8,000 revised to Rs.9,300 – 34,800 subject to certain conditions and whereas while the condition No.2 states about the period from the date of entitlement to the date of Government Resolution to be treated as notionally. The said Government Resolution does not lay any condition in case post of Education Inspector which is available in the set up of the concerned Municipal School Board. Under such circumstances, the Primary Teacher would be entitled for the arrears from date of entitlement to the date of said Government Resolution. 1.4. The petitioners herein are identically placed to the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 4368 of 2020 and allied matters decided on 20.02.2024, as also Special Civil Application No. 5832 of 2015 and allied matters, decided on 29.04.2024. 1.5. In view of the above, petitioners herein are entitled to the arrears, in view thereof, the government resolution dated 12.10.2022 restricting the payment of arrears is required to be interfered with, to the extent that it treats the period of entitlement till the date of the government resolution to be treated notionally. 1.6. The petitioners are the Primary Teachers employed by the respondent-Municipal School Board, in different districts since last many years. The petitioners were appointed in the pay-scale of Rs.1200-2040 under the Gujarat Civil Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 1987. Upon coming into force of the Revision of Pay Rules, 1997 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 the petitioners were placed in the pay-scale of Rs.4000-6000. 1.7. The State Government introduced a scheme of Higher Pay-Scale vide Government Resolution dated 05.07.1991, which was subsequently modified by Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994. Since the petitioners became eligible for the Higher Pay-Scale as envisaged in Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994, their cases were accordingly considered and the higher pay-scale of Rs.5000-8000 was granted to them. The said grant of the higher pay-scale was sent for approval to Director of Primary Education, but since no decision was taken, the association of the Primary Teachers made various representations to the authorities to grant such approval. 1.8. It appears that the order dated 14.06.2005, refers to the common judgment passed by this Court on 20.12.2004 in Special Civil Application No.11267 of 2004 and allied matters. Thus, the genesis of the entire dispute of fixing and reduction of the pay-scale of the petitioners is the order dated 14.06.2005. After analyzing the entire controversy and considering the different pay fixation, including the revision of pay, this Court directed the State Government to examine the issue in light of the observations made in the judgment, which reads thus: “28. The petitions are accordingly partly allowed. After analyzing the entire controversy and considering the different pay fixation, including the revision of pay, this Court directed the State Government to examine the issue in light of the observations made in the judgment, which reads thus: “28. The petitions are accordingly partly allowed. The State Government shall examine the controversies which are subject matter of these petitions afresh in light of the observations made in this judgment and particularly as to – (i) what should be the pay-scale payable to the school inspectors/education inspectors/supervisors for primary schools managed and controlled by Municipal Corporations/ Municipalities / District Panchayats; (ii) when the pay-scale of primary teachers employed by the Municipal Corporations/Municipalities and of those employed by the district panchayats is the same, whether it is necessary to provide different first/second/third higher grade pay-scales for primary teachers employed by Municipal Corporations/ Municipalities.” 1.9. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment, the State Government passed the order dated 14.06.2005 prescribing that the Primary Teachers who do not have any promotional posts, will be entitled to the Higher Pay-Scale as per Appendix-I to the Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994. 1.10. By order dated 26.9.2017 passed in Special Civil Application No. 13687 of 2009, the order granting the higher pay-scale of Rs.5000-8000 to the petitioner was restored. However, the aforesaid direction issued vide order dated 26.9.2017 was not complied with and therefore, the petitioners preferred Misc. Civil Application No.844 of 2018 for contempt, wherein, the order dated 07.12.2021 came to be passed, which read thus: "1. These contempt proceedings have been initiated against the respondent contemnors alleging violation of the order dated 26.9.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.1485 of 2010. 2. The affidavits filed by the respondent contemnors which are on record would disclose that 1st and 2nd higher grade pay scale which was ordered to be granted to the petitioners by the respondents has been granted and in sofaras the 3rd higher grade pay scale is concerned, it is said to be under contemplation or under process. Said issue namely, grant of 3rd Higher Grade Pay Scale was not the subject matter of the lis or any such direction had been issued by the learned Single Judge. 3. Though Mr. Said issue namely, grant of 3rd Higher Grade Pay Scale was not the subject matter of the lis or any such direction had been issued by the learned Single Judge. 3. Though Mr. Pujara, learned counsel appearing for the complainants would vehemently submit that there has been delay in implementing the directions issued by the learned Single Judge, we do not find any explanation whatsoever having been offered for such delay, except stating in the compliance affidavit that they were pushing the file from table to table or there was exchange of communication between Officers and prevalent pandemic. Unexplained delay of 20 months cannot be countenanced by this Court. However, on account of the respondents having purged in the contempt, we do not propose to proceed further in this contempt petition. There being no explanation whatsoever offered for the delay at least by narrating the facts which led to the delay, we are of the considered view that respondents are required to be mulcted with costs for such unexplained delay. Accordingly, we direct the contemnors to pay Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) to each of the 131 petitioners. It is made clear that State would be at liberty to recover the said amount from the concerned officials who are responsible for such delay by proceeding against them in the departmental proceedings, if they so desire, this Misc. Civil Application stands dismissed and proceedings are dropped. Notice is discharged." 1.11. In view of the aforesaid backdrop and factual aspect of the matter, the respondent State Government has accepted the judgment and order passed by the coordinate bench in Special Civil Application No. 13687 of 2009 and granted the benefits of the higher pay scales. 1.12. Now coming to the government resolution dated 12.10.2022, the State Government has in fact accepted the anomaly that the Primary Teachers, who are serving under Municipal School Board are also entitled to the higher grade in the scale of Rs.5,000-8,000/-. 1.12. Now coming to the government resolution dated 12.10.2022, the State Government has in fact accepted the anomaly that the Primary Teachers, who are serving under Municipal School Board are also entitled to the higher grade in the scale of Rs.5,000-8,000/-. However, with a view to deprive certain class of Primary Teachers serving under the Municipal School Board, the State Government put certain conditions, more particularly, the condition No.2 of the said resolution dated 12.10.2022, which reads thus:- "(2) Out of the teachers of the Government Primary Schools being run by the Urban Primary Education Committee, henceforth, in the cases of the teachers who, at present, are entitled for the First Higher Grade Pay Scale of Rs.4500-7000 (Pay Scale of Rs.5200-20200, Grade Pay-2800 as per the Sixth Pay Commission) on the eligibility date thereof, the First Higher Grade Pay Scale of Rs.5000-8000 (Pay Scale of Rs.9300-34800, Grade Pay of Rs.4200 as per the Sixth Pay Commission) shall have to be granted and the amount of arrears of the First Higher Grade Pay Scale of Rs.5000-8000 (Pay Scale of Rs.9300-34800, Grade Pay 4200 as per Sixth Pay Scale) shall have to be considered as notional for the period from their eligibility date till the date of Resolution and the actual payment shall have to be made with effect from 12/10/2022.” 1.13. By the said resolution, the First Higher Grade Pay Scale of Rs.5000-8000 was granted and the amount of arrears of the First Higher Grade Pay Scale of Rs.5000- 8000 was to be considered as notional for the period from the eligibility date till the date of Resolution. 1.14. Thereafter, in similar set of facts, the Court has passed order dated 20.02.2024 in Special Civil Application No. 4368 of 2020, wherein, relevant part of the said order reads thus: "7. The only question which arises for consideration of this Court is as to whether the respondent - State was justified in restricting the grant of benefits of higher pay-scale in the payscale of Rs.5,000- 8,000 revised to Rs.9,300 – 34,800, by directing the period from the date of entitlement to the date of the Government Resolution dated 16.8.1994 as being treated notionally. In this regard it would appear that the prayers made by the petitioners for grant of arrears are being opposed by the learned AGP on the following counts:- (i) That there being no promotional post available in the Municipal School Board in which the petitioners are working. (ii) That there being no averment in the petition and no confirmation by the concerned School Board that there existed a post of Education Inspector in the set up of the concerned School Board. (iii) That the petitions are being delayed. 8. In the considered opinion of this Court, all the objections taken by learned AGP, are absolutely misconceived and goes beyond the decision of the State Government in the Government Resolution dated 12.10.2022. A perusal of the Government Resolution more particularly, the recital part of the Government Resolution clearly reveals the reason behind its formulation. It appears that the State Government was conscious of the fact that there existed a serious anomaly in the matter of grant of first higher grade to Primary Teachers in various Municipal School Boards. It would appear that on account of there being no promotional post of Education Inspector available; therefore, seniors working in a particular Municipal School Board would be drawing salary much less than the salary being drawing by the juniors working in a different Municipal School Board where there was a promotional post of Education Inspector available. In the considered opinion of this Court, being conscious of the anomaly, the State Government had come out with a Government Resolution and whereas the very purpose of the Government Resolution was to ensure that even if there were no post of Education Inspector in the set up of the Municipal School Board concerned then also, the Primary Teachers would be entitled to higher grade in the scale of Rs.5,000-8,000. 8.1 In the considered opinion of this Court, to state that the payment of higher grade in the scale of Rs.5,000-8,000 is inextricably linked to availability of promotional post, is completely fallacious. 8.1 In the considered opinion of this Court, to state that the payment of higher grade in the scale of Rs.5,000-8,000 is inextricably linked to availability of promotional post, is completely fallacious. In the considered opinion of this Court, if there existed a promotional post of Education Inspector, which carried pay-scale of Rs.5,000-8,000, the petitioners and all other similarly situated persons would have been automatically entitled to revision in 1st higher grade in the payscale as carried by the post of Education Inspector and whereas there would not have been any issue with regard to the entitlement of the petitioners and such similarly situated Primary Teachers for revision in the higher grade in the pay-scale of Rs.5,000-8,000. The very reason for which the petitions have been filed from the year 2009 to the present petition was that on account of non-existence of post of Education Inspector in the set up of the concerned School Board, resulting in the Primary Teachers being discriminated in the matter of revision of salary in higher grade i.e. wherever a post of Education Inspector was available, revision would be in the pay-scale of Rs.5,000-8,000 and wherever such post was not available, then revision would be in the pay-scale of Rs.4,500- 7,000. 8.2 In the considered opinion of this Court, since it was to resolve the above anomaly that the State Government had passed the resolution, thereafter the learned AGP on behalf of the State cannot be heard to argue that the provision of arrears should be contingent upon the availability of the post of the Education Inspector with the concerned School Board. 9. As a matter of fact, a perusal of the Government Resolution dated 12.10.2022, while it holds that from 1.1.1996, to ensure equality amongst Primary Teachers in Municipal School Boards, benefit of 1st higher grade would be in the pay-scale of Rs.5,000-8,000 revised to Rs.9,300 – 34,800 subject to certain conditions and whereas while the condition No.2 states about the period from the date of entitlement to the date of Government Resolution to be treated as notionally yet, one does not find the Government Resolution laying down any condition that in case post of Education Inspector is available in the set up of the concerned Municipal School Board, then the Primary Teacher would be entitled for the arrears from date of entitlement to the date of Government Resolution. 9.1 In the considered opinion of this Court, to state that the arrears would be granted to only such School Boards where the post of Education Inspector was in existence, would be going against the grain of the Government Resolution itself and would result in a paradoxical situation same. To clarify on one hand the Government comes out with a resolution to rectify an anomaly in the payment of 1st higher grade between Primary Teachers in School Board where the post of Education Inspector was available and where such a post was not available. Having come out with a policy now to state that payment of arrears would be dependent on availability of the promotion post of Education Inspector would amount to perpetuating the same anomaly which was sought to be rectified. The paradox being too obvious to be misused. 10. As a matter of fact, it would appear that even the State has not implemented the Government Resolution in its true prospective more particularly, considering the fact that the State had passed an order dated 20.04.2023 i.e. after similarly situated Primary Teachers had preferred writ petitions before this Court being SCA No.5849 of 2023 and allied matters i.e. preferred by the Primary Teachers in the Municipal School Board at Surat, who had raised similar grievance and whereas vide order dated 20.04.2023, the State had deemed it appropriate to hold that the said Primary Teachers working with the Municipal School Board, Surat would be entitled more particularly, since the promotional post of Education Inspector was available in the set up of the Municipal School Board, Surat. In the considered opinion of this Court having come out with the resolution, which granted benefit of higher grade in the pay-scale of Rs.5,000-8,000, from 1.1.1996, irrespective of availability of any post of Education Inspector, it was not open for the State to have restricted the grant of benefit of arrears to only such Primary Teachers where the post of Education Inspector existed. For the above reasons, the stand of the learned AGP cannot be countenanced and the same is rejected. For the above reasons, the stand of the learned AGP cannot be countenanced and the same is rejected. 10.1 It would be required to be reiterated at this stage that the intent of the Government Resolution dated 12.10.2022, if read carefully, was to provide for exception to the general rule and whereas it would appear that the same was probably based on the observations of learned Coordinate Bench in the decision dated 26.9.2017 in SCA No. 13687 of 2009 and allied matters to ensure that there is no discrimination amongst Primary Teachers working in School Boards with different Municipalities, based upon availability of higher post, of Education Inspector, the Government Resolution, inter-alia, envisaged that after 1.1.1996, payment of salary in the higher grade, would be at the rate of Rs.5,000-8,000 and whereas the Government Resolution does not restrict the revision to only such School Boards where the post of Education Inspector was available. 11. Insofar as reliance on decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.4339 of 2020 dated 16.09.2020 is concerned, while it is attempted to be stated that facts of the present case and facts of the case before the Hon’ble Division Bench were similar, to this Court it does not appear to be so. In the considered opinion of this Court and in the facts of the case before the Hon’ble Division Bench, it would appear that Junior Clerks, who had the post of Senior Clerks available in their establishment, were requesting for grant of higher grade scale in the cadre of Head Clerk and whereas the Hon’ble Division Bench had, inter-alia, observed that as per Clause 3(3) of the Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994, the higher grade would be available in the pay-scale of the post of Senior Clerk i.e. the available higher post in the set up and not to that of Head Clerk. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, on account of the facts in the present case being different then the facts before the Hon’ble Division Bench, the observation of the Hon’ble Division Bench in the decision dated 16.9.2020 would not advance the cause of the State, as submitted by the learned AGP. Again the State having passed the Resolution dated 12.10.2022, accepting the entitlement of the petitioners, reliance placed upon the decision of the Division Bench appears to be absolutely misplaced. Again the State having passed the Resolution dated 12.10.2022, accepting the entitlement of the petitioners, reliance placed upon the decision of the Division Bench appears to be absolutely misplaced. 11.1 Insofar as the aspect of delay as sought to be explained in the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Under Secretary is concerned, it requires to be mentioned i.e. the Government Resolution itself envisages the entitlement of the Primary Teachers to revision in the 1st higher grade with effect from 1.1.1996. The only grievance was with regard to the payment of arrears from the date of entitlement till the date of the issuance of the Government Resolution. While the respondent State may or may not be justified in raising objection with regard to delay in filing the petition before the GR dated 12.10.2022 came to be passed, yet in the considered opinion of this Court the contention with regard to delay cannot be countenanced after the State has passed the GR dated 12.10.2022. The said GR having accepted the entitlement of the petitioners for the benefit of first higher scale in the scale of Rs.5,000-8,000. The only challenge is with regard to the entitlement of the petitioners to the arrears which as per the GR would be available only notionally. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, upon the GR dated 12.10.2022 being issued and the grievance was being with regard to the arrears being treated notionally, the petition is not barred by delay given the cause of action would relate to the GR dated 12.10.2022 itself. 12. Reverting back to the substantive issue, perusal of the Government Resolution does not reveal any reason whatsoever as to the State taking a stand as regards non-payment of arrears to the beneficiaries. On the contrary, perusal of the recitals as noted hereinabove reveals that one of the primary reasons, which weigh with the State was the fact that on account of the anomaly, as explained hereinabove, Junior Teachers in a set up where the promotional post of Education Inspector was available upon revision were being paid salary in the higher pay-scale of Rs.5,000-8,000 whereas seniors in a set up where the promotional posts were not available were being paid salary in the scale of Rs.4,500-7,000 i.e. lower than the scale in which the juniors were being paid. It was to ensure that such an anomaly is removed that Government Resolution had been promulgated by the State and in the considered opinion of this Court, when the State was conscious of the fact that on account of the anomaly, there would be dissatisfaction amongst seniors, who would not be entitled to payment of higher grade in the scale of Rs.5,000-8,000 only on account of the Municipal School Board not having the post of Education Inspector in its set up, then it was incumbent upon the State to have ensured that the Teachers like the present petitioners be paid arrears of salary. 12.1 Furthermore it clearly appears that the Government Resolution fails to provide any rationale for the withholding of arrears, and considering the lack of merit in the argument regarding delay as evidenced in the affidavit-inreply, the submissions made by the learned AGP regarding delay are untenable and are thus dismissed. 13. In the considered opinion of this Court, based on the aforementioned discussion, observations, it would appear that the Government Resolution dated 12.10.2022 insofar as it restricts payment of arrears, is required to be interfered with. Hence, the following directions are passed:- (i) The present petition is hereby allowed. (ii) Government Resolution dated 12.10.2022 is interfered with insofar as it states about treating the period between the date of entitlement till the date of Government Resolution required to be treated notionally. (iii) The petitioners are declared to be entitled for grant of arrears upon revision as per 1st higher grade in the pay-scale of Rs.5,000-8,000 i.e. from the date of their entitlement till the date of the Government Resolution. Arrears to be calculated and paid to the petitioners within a period of 12 weeks from today. In the facts of the present case, more particularly since it relates to a policy decision by the State, where an exception is made to the general rule, therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioners are not entitled to any interest upon the arrears. The petition stands disposed as allowed. Rule made absolute to the above extent." 1.15. The core issue which is involved in the present petitions, is that whether the Primary Teachers working in the Municipal Primary Education Committees (known as 'Municipal School Boards') are entitled to the higher pay-scale equivalent to the Primary Teachers working in the District Education Committees. 1.16. The petition stands disposed as allowed. Rule made absolute to the above extent." 1.15. The core issue which is involved in the present petitions, is that whether the Primary Teachers working in the Municipal Primary Education Committees (known as 'Municipal School Boards') are entitled to the higher pay-scale equivalent to the Primary Teachers working in the District Education Committees. 1.16. Before making an endeavor to deal with the aforesaid issue, it will be apposite to take note of the fact that the Primary Teachers of both the Municipal School Boards and the District Education Committees are governed by same Recruitment Rules. They have similar educational qualifications. They can be transferred inter-se from the District Committee to the Municipal Boards and vice-versa. Their nature of work and working hours are also same. Their recruitment and appointment is also done by the same authorities. The respondents have also acknowledged the said facts. The Primary Teachers of the Municipal School Boards on their transfer/absorption in the District Primary Education Committees are granted the benefit of higher pay-scale of Rs.5000-8000, whereas the Primary Teachers, who remain in the Municipal School Boards, are granted the lower pay-scale of Rs.4500- 7000. The only difference is in the nomenclature when the Primary Teachers are transferred inter se. The promotional post of the Primary Teachers in the Municipal School Board is known as “Supervisor”, whereas in the District Primary Education Committee it is “Kelvani Nirikshak” (Education Inspector). The anomaly amongst the Primary Teachers can be justified from the judgment dated 26.07.2016 passed in Special Civil Application No.15307 of 2003 and allied matters. The same pertains to the Amreli Municipal School Board and Surendranagar District Panchayat School Committee. The Primary Teachers of Amreli Municipal School Board were granted the higher pay-scale of Rs.5000-8000 since there was a promotional post, whereas the Primary Teachers working in the Surendranagar Municipality were granted the higher pay-scale of Rs.4500-7000, and only on being absorbed in the Surendranagar District School Committee area they were conferred the benefit of the higher pay-scale of Rs.5000-8000. Thus, the facts enumerated in the said judgment enlighten the anomaly and discrimination between the two set of Primary Teachers.” 8. Thus, the facts enumerated in the said judgment enlighten the anomaly and discrimination between the two set of Primary Teachers.” 8. In light of the aforesaid position of law and the facts of the present case wherein, the petitioners herein, after identically placed to the petitioners of Special Civil Application Nos.3438 of 2020 and 3437 of 2020 whereby, the petitioners working under the municipal school board, are entitled to higher pay-scale equivalent to the primary teachers working in the district school board in light of the fact that the appointing authority, transferring authority, promotion authority, educational qualification, working hours, transfer rules are common, in the opinion of this Court, the present petitioners are also entitled to the same pay-scale to that of the teachers working in the district school boards. 9. In light of the aforesaid and in view of the statement made by Ms.Motla, learned A.G.P. pursuant to the communication dated 14.10.2024, which is also placed on record, the prayers, as prayed for, in the present petition are required to be granted and this Court is inclined to pass the following order:- (a) The government resolution dated 12.10.2022 is interfered with to the extent that the same treats the period between the date of entitlement till the date of resolution as notional. (b) The petitioners are declared to be entitled for grant of arrears upon revision as per 1st higher grade in the pay-scale of Rs.5,000- 8,000 i.e. from the date of their entitlement till the date of the Government Resolution. Consequentially, the petitioners are also entitled for the 2nd and 3rd higher pay-scales (as the case may be). Arrears to be calculated and paid to the petitioners within a period of 12 (twelve) weeks from the date of the receipt of order. In the facts of the present case, more particularly, since it relates to a policy decision by the State, where an exception is made to the general rule, therefore, in view of this Court, the petitioners are not entitled to any interest upon the arrears. (c) If any benefits which are already paid to the petitioners, in view of the earlier orders passed in their favour conferring the higher pay-scale of Rs.5000-8000, the same shall be adjusted accordingly. 10. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.