ORDER : (Biren Vaishnav, J.) 1. These appeals have been filed by the appellants, who were the original petitioners before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge by a common order dated 07.07.2022 dismissed the petitions of the appellants herein. 2. For the purpose of this order, facts of Letters Patent Appeal No. 116 of 2024 are discussed. 2.1 It is the case of the appellant petitioner that he was holding a qualification of Diploma in Civil Engineering. On 12.08.1975, he came to be appointed as Assistant Surveyor. With effect from 13.07.1984, he was promoted to the post of Planning Assistant. The pay-scale of the Planning Assistant was revised to that of Rs.1640-2900. It is the case of the petitioner that the State Government vide notification dated 20.03.1991 created two pay-scales, one of Rs.2000-3200 which was given to the degree holders in Civil Engineering and the other of Rs.1640- 2900 to the diploma holders in Civil Engineering. The corporation adopted the same on 18.11.1991. 2.2 It is the case of the petitioners that the State Government’s association of class-III technical employees approached this court by filing Special Civil Application No. 7950 of 1995 challenging the notification of 20.03.1991. This court by an order dated 11.06.2012 quashed the said notification. The same was confirmed in appeal before the Division Bench as well as the Apex Court. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner having retired on 30.06.2000 made several representations prior thereto in the years 2017-18 and 2018-19 requesting the Corporation that his pay-scale be revised to Rs.2000-3200. 3. Mr. Anand Gogia, learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the appellants were entitled to the pay-scale of Rs.2000-3200. He would rely on the notification of the Rajkot Municipal Corporation which defined the recruitment rules for the post of Planning Assistant. Relying on the recruitment rules dated 19.06.1992, he would submit that Planning Assistants who were promoted were entitled to the pay-scale of Rs.2000-3200. Reliance was also placed on the resolution dated 13.04.1998 passed by the Municipal Corporation adopting the pay-scales as applicable to the State Government. Relying on the recruitment rules dated 19.06.1992, he would submit that Planning Assistants who were promoted were entitled to the pay-scale of Rs.2000-3200. Reliance was also placed on the resolution dated 13.04.1998 passed by the Municipal Corporation adopting the pay-scales as applicable to the State Government. He would therefore submit that the valid right to the appellants accrued for fixation of their pay in the pay- scale of Rs.2000-3200 in light of the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.7950 of 1995 which was confirmed by the Division Bench in appeal and also confirmed before the Apex Court. Mr. Gogia would submit that the appellants therefore were entitled to the pay-scale of Rs.2000-3200. 4. Mr. Yogi Gadhia, learned advocate appearing for the respondent Corporation would take us through the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the Corporation and submit that if the rules of 1992 are seen, it categorically states that Planning Assistants irrespective of their qualification had the pay-scale of Rs.1640-2600 and therefore the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that they were entitled to the pay-scale of Rs.2000-3200 was misconceived. He would submit that no Planning Assistant in the Rajkot Municipal Corporation was ever given the pay-scale of Rs.2000-3200. 4.1 Inviting our attention to the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the Corporation, he would submit that the learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the petition in limine. He would submit that the petitioners have filed the petitions as an afterthought after having retired in the year 2000 and after the order passed by the Apex Court in the year 2013. He would submit that even otherwise it was categorically pointed out in paragraph no. 13 of the affidavit to indicate that it is not the case of the appellants that they were getting a pay-scale lower than that of the degree holders. Admittedly, therefore, the appellants are not entitled to any relief. 5. Having considered the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties, it will be in the fitness of things to reproduce the relevant portion of the order of the learned Single Judge in which the prayers of the petitioners – appellants have been formulated and reproduced. The same reads as under: “1. These group of petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are filed with following prayers :. The same reads as under: “1. These group of petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are filed with following prayers :. “A) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of or in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding respondent authorities to finalise the payment of the differential amount of pay scale along with other consequential benefits commutation in pension, gratuity, leave encashment etc.; B) Further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to make payment of interest on delayed of payment of differential amount and consequential benefits, and C) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition, the Hon’ble Court may be please to direct the respondent authorities to calculate the difference amount of pay scale and other consequential benefits and finalise the case of the petitioner within such time limit as may be deemed thought fit, just proper in the interest of justice.” 5.1 Coming to the issue of two different pay-scales granted to degree holders and diploma holders in Civil Engineering vide notification dated 20.03.1991 and that the same having been set aside by this court by an order dated 11.06.2012 and therefore the entitlement of the appellants being given the pay-scales is concerned, what needs to be noticed is that after having superannuated in they year 2000, based on a decision which was rendered in the year 2012 and confirmed by the Apex Court in the year 2013, the petitioners – appellants sought to approach this court by filing the respective petitions in 2018. Obviously therefore it is a clear case where after having accepted the pay-scales and after having retired from service, after more than 18 years in the case of appellant of Letters Patent Appeal No. 116 of 2024, the prayers in the nature so reproduced hereinabove were sought. 6. There is one more reason why we are not inclined to accept the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant. Reading of the notification of 16.04.1992 would indicate that admittedly the only pay-scale that was available to the Planning Assistants was that of Rs.1640- 2900. Nowhere in the petition or in the pleadings it was the case of the appellants that there were Planning Assistants who were drawing the pay-scale of Rs.2000- 3200 and accordingly that their pay-scales must be revised so as to bring in conformity with similarly situated Planning Assistants. Nowhere in the petition or in the pleadings it was the case of the appellants that there were Planning Assistants who were drawing the pay-scale of Rs.2000- 3200 and accordingly that their pay-scales must be revised so as to bring in conformity with similarly situated Planning Assistants. Reading of the petitions would indicate that the entire case of the appellants was based on the decision in the case of Special Civil Application No. 7950 of 1995 which attained finality in the year 2013 in favour of the petitioners therein. It is only thereafter that the appellants after having superannuated thought of exercising their rights to claim the pay-scale of Rs.2000-3200. We agree with the submission of Mr. Gadhia, learned counsel for the Corporation that by their conduct the appellants have shown that they were fence sitters waiting for the outcome of the litigation at the hands of their counter parts in the State Government. 7. From the affidavit in reply and the notifications annexed thereto, it is proved that the case of the appellants that the State Government’s notification for revision of pay in the pay-scales of Rs.2000-3200 was adopted by the State is misconceived. During the course of arguments in support of this contention Mr. Gogia relied on the notification of the State that the resolution of the Corporation dated 13.04.1998. Reading the resolution would indicate that such resolution was only for the purpose of awarding the benefits of Fifth Pay Commission and adopting the benefits thereto viz-a-viz the Corporation. It no way indicates that a pay-scale of Rs.2000-3200 be given to the concerned appellants. 8. Having therefore independently examined the case of the appellants and in addition thereto having seen the reasoning of the learned Single Judge, we are of the opinion that the appeals lack merit. 9. The appeals are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.