Promoted Executive Engineers are entitled to higher pay scale of ₹10,000-₹15,200 as per statutory notifications.

Respondent No. 1 (the employee) was initially appointed as a Junior Engineer at the erstwhile Gujarat Agricultural University. He was promoted to Deputy Engineer (Civil) on August 7, 1993.

On July 20, 2002, he was promoted to Executive Engineer, but the appellant University granted him a pay scale of Rs. 8,000–13,500 instead of the requested Rs. 10,000–15,200.

Following a previous court direction in SCA No. 4608 of 2009, the State Government refused the higher pay scale, leading the employee to approach the learned Single Judge.

The Single Judge ruled in favor of the employee, directing the University to grant the pay scale of Rs. 10,000–15,200. The University challenged this order in the present Letters Patent Appeal.

1. Whether an Executive Engineer in an Agricultural University is entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 10,000–15,200, consistent with other Government departments and statutory notifications.

2. Whether a promoted employee can be retained in the same pay scale as their previous lower cadre post.

The Court relied on the precedent set in Special Civil Application No. 9467 of 1998 (decided on 25.08.2004), which established that Executive Engineers in Agricultural Universities are entitled to the same pay scales (Rs. 10,000–15,200) as those in other Government departments.

The Court applied the Gazette Notification dated April 29, 2004, issued under the Gujarat Agricultural Universities Act, which explicitly assigned the pay scale of Rs. 10,000–15,200 to the post of Executive Engineer.

The Court rejected the University's contention that the post carried a lower scale, noting that the Gazette Notification of 2004 specifically categorized the Executive Engineer post at the Rs. 10,000–15,200 level.

The Court reasoned that since the employee was promoted from Deputy Engineer (which carried the Rs. 8,000–13,500 scale) to Executive Engineer via an office order dated July 20, 2002, it was logically and legally unsustainable to keep him in the same pay scale as his lower cadre post.

The Court emphasized that a promotion inherently contemplates movement into a higher pay bracket.

The Bench further noted that even the University and State counsel conceded that the notification supported the employee’s entitlement.

The Court affirmed the decision of the learned Single Judge and directed the appellant to comply with the order and release the due amounts within 12 weeks. The pending Civil Application for stay was also disposed of.