High Court of Gujarat
MITULKUMAR GHANSHYAMBHAI PATELversusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Disposal
- 38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH
- Bench
- NIRAL R MEHTA
Holding
The Court held that the principle of stepping up must be applied, requiring the petitioners' pay to be fixed at Rs.7730 in Pay Band 1 with arrears from 01-01-2006 to remove the pay anomaly.
Summary
The petitioners, appointed as peons before 2006, were placed on a lower pay scale than their juniors after the implementation of the Sixth Central Pay Commission. They sought a direction under Article 226 to have their pay stepped up to Rs.7730 in Pay Band 1, with arrears from 01-01-2006, arguing a violation of Article 14. The Court referred to its earlier judgments in Special Civil Applications No.12207 of 2014 and No.16156 of 2025, which applied the principle of stepping up to remove pay anomalies. It held that the principle applies when senior officers draw lower pay than juniors in the same cadre and post, and that the State must adjust the petitioners' pay accordingly. The Court allowed the petition, directing the State to verify the petitioners' similarity to earlier cases and to implement the pay step‑up within a stipulated period.
Issues considered
- The applicability of the principle of stepping up of pay to senior employees whose juniors receive higher pay after the Sixth Pay Commission.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to pay parity under Article 14 of the Constitution.
- Whether the State must fix the petitioners' pay at Rs.7730 in Pay Band 1 with arrears from 01-01-2006.
- Whether the State may verify the petitioners' similarity to earlier litigants before granting relief.
Subjects
pay paritystepping upArticle 14Article 226Sixth Central Pay Commissionpay anomalyGujaratsenioritypay band
Judgment
C/SCA/8730/2026 ORDER DATED: 02/07/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8730 of 2026
==========================================================
MITULKUMAR GHANSHYAMBHAI PATEL & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. R.D.KINARIWALA(6146) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
MS DIPALI N PATEL(12475) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
MS NIDHI VAYS, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
Date : 02/07/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Ms.Nidhi Vyas, 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 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
Page 1 of 11
C/SCA/8730/2026 ORDER DATED: 02/07/2026
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 Special Civil Application No.16156 of
2025 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 favour of the petitioners who were
otherwise drawing less pay in Special Civil Application
No.16156 of 2025 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:-
Page 2 of 11
C/SCA/8730/2026 ORDER DATED: 02/07/2026
“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 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
Page 3 of 11
C/SCA/8730/2026 ORDER DATED: 02/07/2026
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 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 :
Page 4 of 11
C/SCA/8730/2026 ORDER DATED: 02/07/2026
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:
[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.
Page 5 of 11
C/SCA/8730/2026 ORDER DATED: 02/07/2026
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 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.
Page 6 of 11
C/SCA/8730/2026 ORDER DATED: 02/07/2026
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 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 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
Page 7 of 11
C/SCA/8730/2026 ORDER DATED: 02/07/2026
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 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
Page 8 of 11
C/SCA/8730/2026 ORDER DATED: 02/07/2026
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 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
Page 9 of 11
C/SCA/8730/2026 ORDER DATED: 02/07/2026
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 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.Nidhi Vyas would submit that since there
Page 10 of 11
C/SCA/8730/2026 ORDER DATED: 02/07/2026
are around 9 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 Special Civil Application No.16156 of
2025 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 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 and Special Civil Application No.16156 of
2025. 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.
(NIRAL R. MEHTA,J)
V.J. SATWARA
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: VIPUL JASWANTBHAI SATWARA(HC00170), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 03/07/2026 11:18:03
Page 11 of 11
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "pay parity"Sign in to search