High Court of Gujarat
NIMESHKUMAR KANTILAL BHATTversusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT
- Decided
- Disposal
- 58-RULE ISSUED & RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @FH
- Bench
- NIRZAR S DESAI
Holding
The Court held that the principle of stepping up applies, requiring the petitioners' pay to be raised to parity with their juniors, with arrears payable from 01‑01‑2006.
Summary
The petitioners, appointed as peons before 2006, were placed on a fixed salary that, after the 6th Pay Commission and a 2009 government resolution, resulted in a lower basic pay (Rs.7100) than their juniors who were appointed after 01‑01‑2006 and placed in a higher pay band. Invoking Article 226, they sought to have their pay stepped up to Rs.7730 in Pay‑Band 1, with arrears from 01‑01‑2006, arguing that the principle of "stepping up" under the Fundamental Rules should remove the anomaly. The Court relied on its earlier judgment in Special Civil Application No. 12207 of 2014 and on precedents such as Maganbhai Arjanbhai Vegda v. State of Gujarat, which affirmed that a senior employee cannot receive lower pay than a junior in the same cadre. It held that the stepping‑up principle applies when seniors and juniors belong to the same cadre and the junior’s pay is higher, mandating parity. Accordingly, the petition was allowed and the State was directed to adjust the petitioners’ salaries, pay arrears, and consequential benefits within the stipulated time‑frames.
Issues considered
- The applicability of the "stepping up" principle to senior government employees whose pay is lower than that of juniors appointed after the 6th Pay Commission.
- Whether the petitioners are similarly situated to the petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 12207 of 2014 for the purpose of extending the same relief.
- Whether the State Government resolution of 27‑02‑2009 and subsequent pay revisions violate Article 14 of the Constitution.
Subjects
- pay parity
- stepping up
- Article 14
- Article 226
- Gujarat
- Sixth Pay Commission
- salary anomaly
- Fundamental Rules
Judgment
C/SCA/16156/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16156 of 2025
=====================================================
NIMESHKUMAR KANTILAL BHATT & ORS.
Versus
THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=====================================================
Appearance:
MR. R.D.KINARIWALA(6146) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,2,20,21,22,23,24,3,4,
5,6,7,8,9
MS DEVANSHI PATEL ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
=====================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 19/01/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Ms. Devanshi Patel,
learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service
of notice of rule on behalf of respondent State.
2. The petitioners by way of this petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India pray for a
direction that the pay of the petitioners be put at
par with their juniors who are appointed or or after
01.01.2006 and to place the petitioners at the stage
of Rs.7730 in the pay band of Rs.5200-20200 (PB1)
with effect from 01.01.2006.
3. The petitioners were appointed on different dates
Page 1 of 13
C/SCA/16156/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026
as a Peon and placed on a fixed salary of Rs.1500 for
a period of five years. As on August 2005, the
petitioners were in the pay- scale of Rs.4440-7440.
By the coming into force of the 6th Pay Commission,
their pay-scale came to be revised and implemented
with effect from 01.01.2006 and they were placed in
the pay-scale of Rs.5200-20200 with the grade pay of
Rs.1900. Thereafter, the State through the Finance
Department came out with a resolution dated
27.02.2009 by which the entry level pay was revised
with effect from 01.01.2006. As per the said
government resolution, the basic pay was fixed at
Rs.7730 with grade pay of Rs.1900 as a result of
which employees junior to the petitioners got more
basic pay than the petitioners.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Kinariwala appearing on
behalf of the petitioners would submit that an
identical issue came up for consideration before this
court in Special Civil Application No. 12207 of 2014
and this Court allowed the petition and directed the
authority to step up the pay of the petitioners
therein by placing them at the pay band with arrears
from 01.01.2006 and to pay periodical rise and all
consequential benefits.
5. Admittedly, when it is a matter of record that the
petitioners were appointed much prior to the other
employees junior to the present petitioners, the
essential ingredient of ‘stepping up of pay’ in
Page 2 of 13
C/SCA/16156/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026
favour of the petitioners who were otherwise drawing
less pay in the basic of Rs.7100 would apply.
6. This Court in Special Civil Application No. 12207
of 2014 and allied matters has considered the very
issue and observed accordingly:-
“20. Here in the present case also, the
petitioners were appointed prior to
January 01,2006 and their juniors were
appointed on or after January 01, 2006,
however, the pay in pay band of the
juniors of the petitioners was fixed
higher than that of the present
petitioners and, thus, there is apparent
anomaly in the salary being paid to the
petitioners as against their juniors.
21. So far as the issue in question is
concerned, it depends upon the
applicability of the principle of stepping
up. Admittedly, the petitioners had been
appointed earlier to the category of
Private Secretary, Grade-I, and some of
their juniors got their pay fixed at a
higher level than the petitioners on
implementation of the Sixth Central Pay
Commission in view of Rules, 2009. To
remove the anomaly of a Government servant
promoted or appointed to a higher post
earlier drawing a lower rate of pay in
that post than another Government servant
junior to him in the lower grade and
promoted or appointed subsequently to the
higher post, the principle of stepping up
of the pay is applied. In such cases the
pay of the senior officer in the higher
post is required to be stepped up to a
figure equal to the pay as fixed for the
junior officer in that higher post. The
Page 3 of 13
C/SCA/16156/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026
stepping up is required to be done with
effect from the date of promotion or
appointment of the junior officer. On
refixation of the pay of the senior
officer by applying the principle of
stepping up, the next increment of the
said officer would be drawn on completion
of the requisite qualifying service with
effect from the date of the refixation of
pay. This principle becomes applicable
when the junior officer and the senior
officer belong to the same category and
the post from which they have been
promoted and in the promoted cadre the
junior officer on being promoted later
than the senior officer gets a higher pay.
This being the principle of stepping up
contained in the Fundamental Rules and
admittedly the petitioners being seniors
and having been appointed earlier than
many of their juniors who were appointed
later to the posts in question, the
principle of stepping up should be made
applicable to the petitioners with effect
from the date their juniors in the same
cadre get appointed and their pay was
fixed at a higher slab than that of the
petitioners. The stepping up should be
done in such a way that the anomaly of
juniors getting higher salary than the
seniors in the same category would be
removed and the pay of the seniors like
the petitioners would be stepped up to a
figure equal to the pay as fixed for their
junior officers. In fact, such anomaly
ought to have been removed at the end of
the respondent- authority itself in view
of the provisions of Rule 7(1)(A)(ii) as
well as also taking into consideration
Note 4 as enumerated in Rules, 2009.
Hence, this Court is of the opinion that
the impugned Government Resolution dated
September 14, 2011, deserves to be read
Page 4 of 13
C/SCA/16156/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026
down insofar as it provides for the entry
level pay of the employees appointed as
fresh recruits on or after January 01,
2006 in the Pay-band 2 (Rs.9300-34800),
having Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- at
Rs.12540/- and having Grade Pay of
Rs.4400/- at Rs.10810/-, without taking
into consideration the fact that the
senior appointed prior to January 01,
2006, in the same cadre like the
petitioners are placed at the pay in pay
band of and Rs.9300/- respectively and
thereby, resulting into patent anomaly and
discrimination. The question is answered
accordingly.
22. Reference is also required to be made
of the decision of this Court rendered on
November 28, 2011 in the case of Maganbhai
Arjanbhai Vegda, etc. v. State of Gujarat
and others, while dealing with Special
Civil Application No.12541 of 2011 to
Special Civil Application No.12598 of
2011. It would be profitable to reproduce
the relevant observations and findings of
the said decision, which read as under :
12. However, the Government Resolution
dated 08.05.1970 of the Finance
Department with regard to pay fixation
and removal of anomaly was authorized by
clause prescribed in the method of
stepping up to be followed and
conditions laid down therein may not be
fulfilled. The conditions enumerated in
para 3 of the said Government
Resolution, read as under:
3. The method of stepping up' shall be
employee subject to the following
conditions, all of which must be
satisfied:
Page 5 of 13
C/SCA/16156/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026
[a] the Government Servants concerned
should belonging to the same cadre and
the posts in which they have been
promoted should be identical and in the
same cadre;
[b] The time-scale of the pay of the
lower and higher posts in which they are
entitled to draw pay should be
identical.
[c] But for his promotion to post
earliest the Government Servant
concerned would have been eligible to
draw pay in the lower post, at a stage
not lower than that admissible to the
Junior person immediately prior to the
latter's promotion to highest post;
[d] The anomaly is directly attributable
to the provision of the Government
Resolution, Finance Department No.Pay-
1264/463, dated the 5th January, 1965.
The above conditions reveal that
Government servants concerned should
belong to the same cadre and the posts
in which they have been promoted should
be identical and in the same cadre and
time scale of the pay of the lower and
higher posts in which they are entitled
to draw pay should be identical.
13.The above two conditions viz. 3(a)
and (b) if read together with the
purpose of issuing the said Government
Resolution are to remove heartburning
and dissatisfaction amongst senior
employees, who are receiving lower pay
scale than the juniors or at least in
the same pay scale as given to the
juniors. The facts of the case would
reveal that merger of two cadres was
effected to remove anomalies pursuant to
Page 6 of 13
C/SCA/16156/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026
the directions given by the High Court
in earlier round of litigation and
Government Resolution of 10.10.2007 was
issued. However, clause Nos.6 & 7 of the
said Government Resolution instead of
removing anomaly has complicated the pay
band receivable by the petitioners
discriminating them and the very purpose
of removing heart burning is frustrated.
If the above Government Resolution is
seen in the context of Revision of Pay
Scale Rules, 1998 and subsequent
revision of rules it transpires that
clause 6 of Government Resolution dated
10.10.2007 is contrary to condition No.4
of the Government Resolution and also
conditions Nos.3(13) of Government
Resolution dated 16.08.1994. In case of
Gurcharan Singh Grewal in paras 17 and
18 of the said judgment held as under:
17. Something may be said with regard to
Mr. Chhabra's submissions about the
difference in increment in the scales in
which Appellant 1 and Shri Shori are
placed, but the same is still contrary
to the settled principle of law that a
senior cannot be paid a lesser salary
than his junior. In such circumstances,
even if there was a difference in the
incremental benefits in the scale given
to Appellant 1 and the scale given to
Shri Shori, such anomaly should not have
been allowed to continue and ought to
have been rectified so that the pay of
Appellant 1 was also stepped up to that
of Shri Shori, as appears to have been
done in the case of Appellant 2.
18. We are unable to accept the
reasoning of the High Court in this
regard or the submissions made in
support thereof by Mr. Chhabra, since
Page 7 of 13
C/SCA/16156/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026
the very object to be achieved is to
bring the pay scale of Appellant 1 on a
par with that of his junior. We are
clearly of the opinion that the
reasoning of the High Court was
erroneous and Appellant 1 was also
entitled to the same benefit of pay
parity with Shri Shori as has been
granted to Appellant 2.
14. That similar was the case decided by
the Division Bench of this Court when
the Laboratory Assistants working under
the Directorate of Higher Education,
Directorate of Technical Education and
non-government colleges affiliated to
the Gujarat University were denied
parity in the pay scale and wages.
Relying on doctrine of equal pay for
equal work, the Division Bench directed
the State authorities to treat Lab
Assistant of non-grant Government
colleges at par with Lab Assistants of
Directorate of Higher Education working
with Government Department. However, the
case of the petitioners herein is on a
better footing inasmuch as they are
working under the same directorate and
there is no dispute about merger of post
and cadre on which they are now working
and receiving less salary than their
juniors. Such discrimination on the face
of it is violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India and respondents
are duty- bound to give the pay scale of
the petitioner at par with those
employees who are junior to the
petitioners working on the same cadre
and post. Even seniority list relied and
placed on record by the petitioners is
also not in dispute. The aforesaid
decision was also confirmed by the
Division Bench of this Court vide order
Page 8 of 13
C/SCA/16156/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026
dated January 08, 2013 while dealing
with Letters Patent Appeal No.1349 of
2012 preferred by the State of Gujarat.
It would be beneficial to regurgitate
the relevant observations and findings
of the said decision, which read as
under:
4. As such, it is not a matter where the
parity in the pay-scale is to be
considered between two separate and
independent cadres which normally is to
be considered and examined by the expert
body. But in the present case, the
question to be considered as considered
by the learned Single Judge was for
stepping up of the pay-scale on account
of circumstance that the junior to the
petitioner due to revision in the pay-
scale has been granted higher pay-scale
or junior to the petitioner has been
found entitled for higher pay- scale,
which should be granted to petitioner.
Further, the entitlement of stepping up
of the pay- scale is within the same
cadre and same post and not in different
post of different cadre.
5.It is an admitted position that
Shri.M.N.Chauhan is junior to the
petitioner. It is also an admitted
position that he has been granted higher
pay-scale of Foreman after revision from
1996 since he had completed 9 years of
service after whereas in case of the
petitioner they were granted higher pay-
scale for the post of Supervisor
Instructor on 02.03.1993 with effect
from 01.06.1987.
6.It is also an admitted position that
in the revision of pay-scale of 1996,
the pay-scale for the post of Craft
Page 9 of 13
C/SCA/16156/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026
Instructor (which was lower post) and
the post of Supervisor Instructor has
been merged and one pay- scale is fixed
i.e. 1400- 2300. Under this
circumstance, the only higher pay-scale,
if any, employee is to receive would be
to the post of Foreman if considered
eligible and granted after 01.01.1996.
It is not case of the appellant that
Shri.M.N.Chauhan-junior to the
petitioner has been wrongly granted
higher pay- scale of Foreman from the
post of Supervisor Instructor but the
contentions are that since the benefit
of higher pay- scale already granted
prior 01.01.1996 is not to be reopened
and it is to be deemed that the higher
pay-scale is already granted to the
petitioner prior to 01.01.1996 and
second time higher pay- scale would not
be available.
7.The contention may prima-facie appear
to be attractive, but upon close
scrutiny, it appears that it is not a
matter of granting of higher pay- scale,
but it is a matter of stepping up of the
pay- scale on account of circumstance
that the junior is drawing higher pay-
scale in comparison to the senior. As
per the Government Resolution dated
10.10.2007, in the clause no.5, stepping
up is made permissible. Therefore,
Clause No.5 would be applicable in the
present case and not Clause No.6 as
sought to be canvassed on behalf of the
appellant, since, it is not for grant of
higher pay- scale, but is of stepping up
of pay-scale on account of circumstance
that the juniors were drawing higher
pay-scale in comparison to the seniors.
The decision of the Apex Court upon
which reliance has been placed by
Page 10 of 13
C/SCA/16156/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026
learned Government Pleader Mr.P.K.Jani
is ill-founded inasmuch as in both the
cases, the Apex Court was not
considering the issue of stepping up of
the pay-scale on account of juniors
receiving higher pay-scale. Moreover,
the entitlement of the junior for higher
pay- scale is not under question or
under challenge in the preset
proceedings nor it is the stand of the
State Government that the juniors were
granted higher pay-scale wrongly.
Therefore, we find that both the
decisions are of no help of the
appellant. The Division Bench relying
upon the decision of the Apex Court held
as to how stepping up is a means for
those sailing in the same cadre.
23. On a conspectus of the legal and
factual scenario discussed above, the
following order is passed :
1.All the petitions are hereby allowed.
2.Insofar as the petitioners of Special
Civil Application No.12207 of 2014 are
concerned, the respondent-authority is
directed to step up their pay by placing
them at Rs.12,540/- in the Pay-band of
Rs.9300-34800 (PB-2) as prayed for, with
arrears from January 01, 2006 and to pay
periodical rise and with all consequential
benefits.
3.So far as the petitioners of Special
Civil Application Nos.18619 of 2014, 2965
of 2015 and 4716 of 2015 are concerned,
the respondent-authority is directed to
step up the pay of the petitioners by
placing them at Rs.10,810/- in the Pay-
band of Rs.9300- 34800 (PB- 2) as prayed
for, with arrears from January 01, 2006
Page 11 of 13
C/SCA/16156/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026
and to pay periodical rise and with all
consequential benefits.
4.The pay of the petitioners in the
respective pay- scales be calculated and
accordingly, they be paid such amounts on
regular basis. Such exercise of
calculation of pay of the petitioners be
completed within a period of three months
from today. Insofar as the amount of
arrears is concerned, the petitioners be
paid the same within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order with interest at the rate of
9% per annum from the date of their
entitlement.
Rule is made absolute accordingly. There
shall be, however, no order as to costs.”
7. At this stage, while it would appear that the
above observations of this Court would cover the
issue in question, yet, learned AGP Ms. Devanshi
Patel would submit that since there are around 24
petitioners who have served in various districts of
the State of Gujarat, some leeway may be given to the
State to verify the aspect of applicability of the
decision of this Court qua the present petitioners.
To this Court, it would appear that the State would
definitely be entitled to verify only a limited
aspect as to whether the petitioners are similarly
situated to the petitioners of Special Civil
Application No.12207/2014 and allied matters and
whereas, upon such verification being in the
positive, the benefit accrued in favour of the said
petitioners should also accrue in favour of the
Page 12 of 13
C/SCA/16156/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026
present petitioners.
8. In view of the above, the petition also deserves
to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The State
is at liberty to verify as to whether the petitioners
are identically / similarly situated to petitioners
of Special Civil Application No.12207/2014. Upon such
verification being in the positive, the respondents
are directed to step up the pay of the petitioners at
the stage of Rs.7730 in the pay band of Rs.5200-
20200 with effect from 01.01.2006 and pay all
consequential benefits in light of the revision of
pay accordingly. The entire exercise to be completed
within a period of 16 weeks from the date of receipt
of the writ of the order of this Court. Rule is made
absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)
Pallavi
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: PALLAVIBEN PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 19/01/2026 18:14:49
Page 13 of 13
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.