PRAFULBHAI THOMASBHAI MACWAN vs STATE OF GUJARAT
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/SCA/12417/2026 (GJHC240652352026) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12417 of 2026
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
PRAFULBHAI THOMASBHAI MACWAN
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. R.D.KINARIWALA(6146) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS SURBHI BHATI ASSTT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 03/09/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Ms. Surbhi Bhati, learned Assistant
Government Pleader waives service of notice of rule on behalf of
respondent State.
2. The petitioner by way of this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India pray for a direction that the pay of the petitioner be
put at par with their juniors who are appointed or or after 01.01.2006 and to
place the petitioner at the stage of Rs.7730 in the pay band of Rs.5200-
20200 (PB1) with effect from 01.01.2006.
3. The petitioner is appointed as a Peon on 19.01.2004 and placed on a
fixed salary of Rs.1500 for a period of five years. As on August 2005, the
Page 1 of 9
Uploaded by Y.N. VYAS(HC00207) on Sat Sep 05 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 05 17:40:49 IST 2026
C/SCA/12417/2026 (GJHC240652352026) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
petitioner was in the pay-scale of Rs.4440-7440. By the coming into force of
th
the 6 Pay Commission, his pay-scale came to be revised and implemented
with effect from 01.01.2006 and he was 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 petitioner got more
basic pay than the petitioner.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Kinariwala appearing on behalf of the
petitioner 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 petitioner 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 petitioner was
appointed much prior to the other employees junior to the present
petitioner, the essential ingredient of ‘stepping up of pay’ in favour of the
petitioner, who was 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.
Page 2 of 9
Uploaded by Y.N. VYAS(HC00207) on Sat Sep 05 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 05 17:40:49 IST 2026
C/SCA/12417/2026 (GJHC240652352026) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
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 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 Rs.12090/- and Rs.9300/- respectively
and thereby, resulting into patent anomaly and discrimination. The question
is answered accordingly.
Page 3 of 9
Uploaded by Y.N. VYAS(HC00207) on Sat Sep 05 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 05 17:40:49 IST 2026
C/SCA/12417/2026 (GJHC240652352026) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
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:
[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
Page 4 of 9
Uploaded by Y.N. VYAS(HC00207) on Sat Sep 05 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 05 17:40:49 IST 2026
C/SCA/12417/2026 (GJHC240652352026) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
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.
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
Page 5 of 9
Uploaded by Y.N. VYAS(HC00207) on Sat Sep 05 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 05 17:40:49 IST 2026
C/SCA/12417/2026 (GJHC240652352026) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
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 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
Page 6 of 9
Uploaded by Y.N. VYAS(HC00207) on Sat Sep 05 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 05 17:40:49 IST 2026
C/SCA/12417/2026 (GJHC240652352026) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
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 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,
Page 7 of 9
Uploaded by Y.N. VYAS(HC00207) on Sat Sep 05 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 05 17:40:49 IST 2026
C/SCA/12417/2026 (GJHC240652352026) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
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. Bhati
would submit that since there are around 40 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 present petitioner.
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
petitioner is identically / similarly situated to petitioners of Special Civil
Application Nos.12207/2014 and 14704/2025. Upon such verification
Page 8 of 9
Uploaded by Y.N. VYAS(HC00207) on Sat Sep 05 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 05 17:40:49 IST 2026
C/SCA/12417/2026 (GJHC240652352026) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
being in the positive, the respondents are directed to step up the pay of the
petitioner 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.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J)
Y.N. VYAS
Page 9 of 9
Uploaded by Y.N. VYAS(HC00207) on Sat Sep 05 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 05 17:40:49 IST 2026