JUDGMENT : 1. Present petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to the respondent - authority to pay the salary to the petitioner along with other usual allowances attached to the post of plumber in the running time scale grade of Rs.3050-4590. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as plumber by the with respondent - authority, who was working as plumber - cum - pump man and had given running time scale of Rs.2550-3200 vide order dated 29.01.2004. That the time scale of plumber came to be revised from Rs.2550-3200 to Rs.3050-4590. It is the case of the petitioner that the duties and responsibilities assigned to him are similar to the duties assigned to Shri Shankarji Fataji Parmar to the post of plumber. It is also the case of the petitioner that the Government of Gujarat passed resolution dated 30.3.1998 considering Fifth Pay Commission in respect of the employees working in the under the Government of India. The petitioner made representation to respondent - authority for placing him in running time scale of Rs.3050-4590, however, the respondent - authority has not considered the representation by holding that the petitioner was given time scale of Rs.2610-3540, which was not the time scale for the post of plumber and the respondent - authority tried to justify that the petitioner has not passed examination of wireman and even he has not possessed the certificate of plumber. It is the case of the petitioner that the similarly situated person Shri Shankarji Fataji Parmar has passed the wireman examination and, therefore, he was given the time scale of Rs.3050-4590. That the petitioner is not given the revised time scale of Rs.3050-4590 which is given to situated person, who is working on the same post of plumber and the petitioner is given time scale of Rs.2610-3540 and, therefore, the petitioner has preferred the present petition. 3. Heard Mr.Nirav Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Ms.Dharitri Pancholi, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 - State and Ms.Archna Acharya, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 4. Mr.Nirav Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was appointed as plumber - cum - pump man in Ambika Vishram Gruh in time scale of Rs.950-1500 and it was revised as per the Fourth Pay Commission. 4. Mr.Nirav Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was appointed as plumber - cum - pump man in Ambika Vishram Gruh in time scale of Rs.950-1500 and it was revised as per the Fourth Pay Commission. He has referred to and relied upon the Government Circular dated 30.03.1998 and has submitted that the pay scale for the post of pump operator and plumber revised more particularly for the post of plumber. He has submitted that the petitioner is entitled to get similar time pay scale which is drawn by Shankarji Parmar. Mr.Mishra, learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner made a representation, which was not considered by respondent - authority. He has emphasized that as per the revised time pay scale, the petitioner is entitled for getting time scale from Rs.950-1500 to Rs.3050-4590 instead of that the petitioner is not getting such benefits and, therefore, the petitioner has preferred this petition. He has submitted the present petition is required to be allowed. 5. Ms.Dharitri Pancholi, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 - State has opposed the present petition and submitted that the petition being meritless deserves to be dismissed. 6. Ms.Archna Acharya, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 - trust has opposed the present petition. She has referred to and relied upon the affidavit-in-reply filed by One G. P. Brahmbhatt, the administrator of respondent - trust. She has submitted that the petitioner was appointed on the post of plumber-cum-wireman/pumpman in Ambika Vishram Gruh, however, though the petitioner was found guilty of the charge, he was terminated. She has submitted that the petitioner has neither passed examination of wireman/plumber nor he is having any certificate and, therefore, he is not entitled to any relief. She has submitted that the petitioner has neither possessed the certificate of wireman nor has he any experience with regard to the plumber and, therefore, he cannot be acquainted with the case of Shankarji Parmar, who worked as plumber - cum - wireman as he is having wireman certificate and having experience of plumber and he was appointed in the construction department whereas the petitioner was appointed in another establishment run by the trust on the post of plumber - cum - wireman. She has submitted that since both the posts are completely different and said Shankarji Parmar and the petitioner both appointed in different establishment and there is no question of any discriminatory treatment given to the petitioner. She has submitted that since the petitioner worked in different establishment i.e. Ambika Vishram Gruh where the revised pay scale was sanctioned by the State Government from Rs.950-1500 to Rs.3050-4590 and they are paying according to the sanction time scale. She has submitted that the petition being meritless deserves to be dismissed. 7. This Court has considered the submissions canvassed by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and affidavit-in-reply as also affidavit-in-rejoinder and the averments made in the petition. This Court has also perused the materials on record. It appears that the petitioner was appointed as plumber by the respondent - trust and was given running time scale of Rs.2550- 3200 vide order dated 29.01.2004 and, thereafter, the time scale of Rs.2550-3200 of plumber came to be revised to Rs.3050-4590. It reveals from the record that the Government of Gujarat passed resolution dated 30.3.1998 considering Fifth Pay Commission in respect of the employees. The petitioner made representation to respondent - authority for placing him in time scale of Rs.3050- 4590, however, the same was not considered. It emerges from the material on record that the petitioner has neither passed examination of wireman nor he has possessed the certificate of plumber and though similarly situated person Shri Shankarji Fataji Parmar passed the wireman examination, therefore, he was given the time scale of Rs.3050-4590 and the petitioner was given time scale of Rs.2610-3540. 8. Considering the facts of the present case, it appears that the petitioner has neither possessed the certificate of wireman nor has he any experience with regard to the plumber and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be acquainted with the case of Shankarji Parmar, who worked as plumber - cum - wireman as he is having wireman certificate and experience of plumber and he was appointed in the construction department whereas the petitioner was appointed in another establishment run by the trust. It appears that both the posts are completely different and said Shankarji Parmar and the petitioner both appointed in different establishment and the petitioner worked in different establishment i.e. Ambika Vishram Gruh where the revised pay scale was sanctioned by the State Government from Rs.950- 1500 to Rs.3050-4590 and they are paying according to the sanction time scale. 9. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, it also reveals that Shankarji Parmar appointed on the sanctioned post of plumber-cum-wireman by the Construction Department of respondent - trust as per Government Resolution dated 05.05.2008 and paid salary in the pay scale of Rs.3050-75-3950-80-4590, whereas, the petitioner appointed on the post of plumber-cum-pump man sanctioned in Ambika Vishram Gruh in the pay scale of Rs.2550-55-2660-60-3200. Now, it is clear that Shankarji Parmar and the petitioner are not similarly situated persons and they are working on different posts sanctioned by different authorities and in different department. Thus, the petitioner is appointed in Ambika Vishram Gruh, while Shankarji Parmar is appointed in respondent - trust and, therefore, there in no question of any discriminatory treatment given by respondents to the petitioner. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to revised time scale, which has been given to similarly situated employee i.e. Shankarji Parmar. The petition is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated forthwith. There shall be no order as to costs. 11. In view of the disposal of the main petition, the civil application stands disposed of accordingly.