Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 135 (GUJ)

Dhirajlal C. Maher v. State of Gujarat

2013-03-05

S.G.Shah, Vijay Manohar Sahai

body2013
Judgment S.G. Shah, J.—The appellant has challenged the order and judgment dated 18/3/2010 rendered by the Ld. Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 9178/1995, wherein present appellant has, as a petitioner, prayed for higher pay-scale as given to Deputy Mamlatdar, Revenue Department with effect from 1/1/1986 and for direction for payment of difference between the pay-scale of Rs.1400-2600 and Rs.1640-2900 and to revise and re-fix his pension and gratuity accordingly, on the ground that initially petitioner was appointed as a Typist in the year 1956 in the office of the Development Centre, Administrative Office, Junagadh under the then Saurashtra State and in the year 1963 he was posted as Typist in the office of the Taluka Development Officer, because certain revenue staff was allocated to Panchayat services of the Gujarat State with effect from 1/4/1963. 2. Heard Ld. Counsel Mr. M T Kikani for the appellant, Mr. N J Shah, Ld. AGP for Respondent No. 1 and Mr. H S Munshaw, Ld. Counsel for Respondent No. 2. 3. It is not disputed that the petitioner was appointed as a Typist in the year 1956 with the then Saurashtra State and after bifurcation of Mumbai State, his services were allocated to Panchayat Department of the State of Gujarat with effect from 1/4/1963, wherein he received regular promotion as a Head Clerk with effect from 16/3/1967 and retired on superannuation on 31/10/1992. However, the writ petition for getting such benefit is filed only on 17/10/1995 averting that petitioner as well as Jilla Panchayat Vahivati Seva Samvarg Mandal, Junagadh, were representing to the Government for extending the benefit of pay-scale of Revenue Officers of the State of Gujarat considering them equal to such Revenue Officers since their services were allocated to Panchayat services, but initially they have joined service of the State Government. It is certain that the petitioner is claiming benefit of particular pay-scale with effect from 1/1/1986, claiming that Head Clerk, Deputy Chitnis, Deputy Mamlatdars and Avval Karkoon working in the Revenue / Panchayat Departments are equal in all respects until 1991 and thereafter, by Government Resolution dated 20/3/1991 only the Deputy Mamlatdars working in the Revenue Department were given the pay-scale of Rs.1640-2900 with effect from 1/1/1986. It is further submitted by the petitioner that he had addressed representation on 17/8/1992 to the District Development Officer that his pay-scale should be fixed in the pay-scale of Rs. It is further submitted by the petitioner that he had addressed representation on 17/8/1992 to the District Development Officer that his pay-scale should be fixed in the pay-scale of Rs. 1640-2900 and the consequent pay of 9, 18 and 27 may also be determined accordingly. 4. The Respondent No. 2 has filed affidavit-in-reply in the petition contending that petition is required to be rejected on the ground of delay and latches and that the Respondent No. 2 has acted relying upon the Government Notification applicable to the Panchayats and that they could not act contrary to the resolution passed by the State Government and the rules applicable to the petitioner regarding his pay-scale. 5. The Ld. Single Judge has also verified such record and after recording factual details, opined that both the cadre i.e. Deputy Mamlatdar in Revenue Department and Deputy Chitnis in Panchayat Services are different. It is not disputed that from the year 1964 to the year 1992 the petitioner has served in Panchayat Department and retired as Deputy Chitnis and not as Deputy Mamlatdar and, therefore, when the State has considered both these cadre as different and decided the pay-scale for different posts differently, the same cannot be said to be illegal and, therefore, the Ld. Single Judge refused to entertain the petition by discharging the notice. 6. We also do not find any reason or substance either in the petition or in this appeal. 7. However, Ld. Advocate for the appellant is relying upon unreported judgment dated 17/4/2012 rendered in Civil Revision Application No. 123/2007 between District Development Officer and Nautamlal Ratilal Joshi and reported decision between State of Gujarat and Ramanlal Keshavlal Soni reported in [1983] 2 SCC 33 of the Hon’ble Apex Court. On perusal of both the above judgments, it becomes clear that unreported judgment of Civil Revision Application No. 123/2007 is not relating to the issue on hand, but learned counsel is simply referring to such judgment to show that in Regular Civil Suit No. 266 of 1981, Ld. Civil Judge [J.D.] had allowed similar relief and the same was confirmed upto this Court. Civil Judge [J.D.] had allowed similar relief and the same was confirmed upto this Court. However, it becomes clear that the petition before us is under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein jurisdiction of this Court is typical i.e. consideration of the illegality, irregularity, perverseness, arbitrariness, etc., either in the impugned order or action or non-action by the statutory bodies and not on factual details between the parties. Therefore, if the Civil Court had granted some higher pay-scale to some plaintiff and if that order has been confirmed upto this Court, that does not mean that in every claim for higher pay-scale, this Court shall allow the petition irrespective of the merits and applicable law and rules. So far as the decision in the case of Ramanlal Keshavlal Soni [Supra] is concerned, it is a broader and wider issue regarding rights and privileges of the employees of the Panchayat. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the Panchayat service constituted under section 203 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act is civil service of the State and the members of the service are governed as Government servants. There is no dispute to such position thereby the petitioner is certainly entitled to be treated as a Government servant, but so far as service conditions, etc., are concerned, it is always as per the applicable rules. In the present case, when the petitioner was in the Panchayat service since the year 1964 and when he was superannuated from the same service in the year 1992, his claim to treat him in the service of the Government and to claim equal pay-scale of the post where he could have been promoted in the Government service, cannot be accepted at such belated stage. 8. It cannot be ignored that pay-scale of petitioner was revised by an order dated 14/7/1982 and difference of arrears from 1/1/1986 till date of such order was paid as per Government’s order dated 14/7/1982. Therefore, it is not the case of the petitioner that he has not received the revised pay-scale, but within revised pay-scale, he is claiming pay-scale of the Deputy Mamlatdar. 9. In view of the above facts, circumstances and discussion, it becomes clear that if the cadre of the petitioner is different, then the Ld. Single Judge is right in dismissing his petition. 9. In view of the above facts, circumstances and discussion, it becomes clear that if the cadre of the petitioner is different, then the Ld. Single Judge is right in dismissing his petition. Therefore, we do not find any substance either in the petition or in the appeal and, therefore, appeal deserves to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed.