Lowest promotional pay scale applies for higher grade benefits when multiple promotional avenues exist.

The petitioners were appointed as Mazdoors/Apprentices (Class-IV) with the Gujarat Maritime Board (GMB) since approximately 1994.

Upon completing nine years of service, GMB granted them the first higher pay scale of Rs. 2610-3540, which corresponds to the post of ‘Khalasi’.

The petitioners challenged this via a representation in 2012, claiming they were entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000, which corresponds to the post of ‘Tradesman’, asserting it was the correct next promotional post.

They relied on prior litigation by ‘Khalasis’ (e.g., Haresh H. Bhatt case) where the court granted the Tradesman scale.

GMB rejected the representation on 24.04.2013, citing Draft Rules and G.R.s which stipulate that if multiple promotional avenues exist, the lowest scale applies.

1. Whether the petition is barred by the doctrine of delay and laches given the six-year gap in approaching the court.

2. Whether Clause 3(3) of G.R. dated 16.08.1994 and Clause 2 of G.R. dated 14.08.1998 apply to determine the higher pay scale when multiple promotional posts exist.

3. Whether the post of ‘Tradesman’ is the only next promotional post for a ‘Mazdoor’.

The court applied Clause 3(3) of the Government Resolution (G.R.) dated 16.08.1994 and Clause 2 of G.R. dated 14.08.1998, which clarify that if a cadre has multiple promotional posts in different scales, the first higher pay scale refers to the scale of the lowest promotional post.

Regarding delay, the court relied on Sanjay Kumar Upadhyay v. State of Jharkhand (AIR 2026 SC 153) and Union of India v. Tarsem Singh ((2008) 8 SCC 648), establishing that pay scale anomalies constitute a "continuing wrong," allowing courts to entertain belated claims but restricting retrospective monetary benefits to three years prior to the petition.

The court first dismissed the respondent's objection regarding delay, noting that while the petitioners were "fence-sitters," the denial of a correct pay scale is a recurring injury; however, any relief would have been restricted to three years of arrears.

On the merits, the court distinguished this case from Haresh H. Bhatt, noting that unlike Khalasis and Tradesmen (who had interchangeable posts and identical scales), Mazdoors and Khalasis draw different scales and are not interchangeable.

Evidence showed that GMB historically promoted Mazdoors to both 'Khalasi' and 'Tradesman' posts.

Applying G.R. dated 16.08.1994, the court reasoned that since two promotional avenues (Khalasi and Tradesman) existed, the Board was legally required to grant the scale of the lowest post, which is 'Khalasi' (Rs. 2610-3540).

The court also rejected GMB's technical objections regarding CCC and Trade exams, citing exemptions for Class-IV staff, but found the primary claim unsupported by promotional hierarchy rules.

The court directly answered that under Clause 3(3) of the 1994 G.R., the petitioners are only entitled to the lowest promotional scale available.

The petitions were dismissed, and the Rule was discharged.

No order as to costs was made.