As per case facts, Assistant Professors (appellants), who were direct recruits, sought pay parity with junior Assistant Professors whose prior ad hoc services were counted for Senior Scale/Selection Grade under ... a government resolution, resulting in the juniors drawing higher pay. The appellants approached the High Court, seeking to step up their pay under Rule 21 of the 2002 Pay Rules to match their juniors. The Single Judge allowed this, but the Division Bench reversed the decision, arguing Rule 21 was not applicable. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court. The question arose whether Rule 21 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pay) Rules, 2002, is applicable to rectify the pay anomaly where direct recruit Assistant Professors are paid less than their juniors who benefited from the counting of their past ad hoc services for higher pay scales. Finally, the Supreme Court held that Rule 21 is inapplicable in this case because the anomaly in pay was not a direct result of the application of Rule 21 itself, but rather due to the counting of previous ad hoc services for the juniors. The Court emphasized that Rule 21 does not apply when a junior draws higher pay due to factors like advance increments or fixation under normal rules, or prior ad hoc service. Granting the appellants the requested benefit would mean compensating them for years they were not in service, which is contrary to the principle of equity and relevant precedents.