Higher pay scale benefits cannot be withdrawn if the department fails to conduct requisite examinations timely.

The petitioner retired as a Junior Clerk on May 31, 2018

Prior to retirement, he was granted the benefit of the first higher pay scale in 2011

Following his retirement, the respondent issued a communication dated February 27, 2019, withdrawing this benefit on the ground that the petitioner had failed to clear the requisite departmental examination

The petitioner had attempted the examination twice between 2011 and 2014 but was unsuccessful

Although he was entitled to a third attempt, the respondent department failed to conduct any departmental examinations between 2014 and the date of the petitioner's retirement in 2018

The petitioner challenged the withdrawal, contending that he could not be penalized for the department's inaction

Whether the respondent authority is legally justified in withdrawing the benefit of a higher pay scale after an employee's retirement when the failure to clear the mandatory departmental examination was due to the department’s failure to conduct such examination during the employee's service tenure.

The court primarily applied the principle established by the Supreme Court in K.K. Gohil v. State of Gujarat (2015) 9 SCC 652, which held that if a higher departmental examination is not organized during the eligibility period, the benefit of a higher pay scale cannot be stalled or withdrawn on that ground

Gujarat Government Circulars dated November 24, 2004, and June 22, 2006, which mandate that departmental examinations must be organized in a timely manner

The court further relied on Kamleshbhai Hemantbhai Joshi v. State of Gujarat [2025 (2) GLR 1044], affirming that employees cannot suffer for the administrative inaction of authorities in failing to hold exams

The court observed that it was an undisputed fact that the petitioner had one remaining attempt to clear the examination but was deprived of this opportunity because the respondent did not conduct any exams between 2014 and 2018

Applying the ratio from K.K. Gohil and Kamleshbhai Hemantbhai Joshi, the court reasoned that the entitlement to a higher pay scale is a policy measure to prevent service stagnancy, and while passing an exam is a condition, that condition is contingent upon the State actually providing the opportunity to sit for the exam

Since the respondent provided no evidence of holding exams twice a year as required by Rule 10, or at any time during the petitioner’s final four years of service, the fault lay entirely with the department

Consequently, the withdrawal of the benefit via the communication dated February 27, 2019, was deemed unsustainable in law

The court held that the petitioner is entitled to the higher pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040

The respondents were directed to calculate and pay the arrears of the difference in pension to the petitioner on or before April 30, 2026, and to ensure future regular pension payments give full effect to the first higher pay scale