Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1564 (GUJ)

Kamalben K. Sachde v. State of Gujarat

2017-09-04

A.S.SUPEHIA

body2017
JUDGMENT : A.S SUPEHIA, J. 1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for grant the first higher pay-scale from 08.01.1975, the second pay-scale from 08.01.1984 and the third pay-scale from 08.01.1993 under 9-18-27 years scheme and also prayed to direct the respondents to give consequential financial benefits accrued therefrom by fixing such fixations to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 12% p.a 2. Learned advocate for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner was appointed as Auxiliary Nurse and Midwife at Primary Health Center at Anjar on 08.01.1966, and she voluntarily retired on 03.04.1995 He has stated that she became entitled for three higher pay-scales on completion of 9-18-27 years, as per Government Resolution 05.07.1991, however, she was not granted the said higher pay-scales. The petitioner also made various applications/representations to the authorities for grant of higher pay-scales, and lastly she made an application on 13.03.2000 He has also stated that thereafter the petitioner approached the Gujarat State Services Tribunal at Gandhinagar by way of filing Application No. 275 of 2000 but the same was adjourned sine die as the issue of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in the matters of higher pay-scale was pending before this Court. Therefore, she filed the present writ petition claiming the aforesaid benefits. 3. Learned advocate for the petitioner has also stated that colleagues of the petitioner viz. Mrs. Lilamma Thomas, who was working in the said hospital, was granted the benefit of three higher pay-scales. He has also referred to the case of Mrs. Geetaben Anjaria, who was also granted the same benefits pursuant to the issuance of notice by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 302 of 2005. Thus, he has stated that the petitioner is meted out with the discrimination qua grant of the higher pay-scales. 4. Per contra, Mr. Soni, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents has relied upon the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent authorities. He has stated that as per Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994, the petitioner is denied higher pay-scales, as Paragraph No. 3 of the resolution specifies that the higher pay-scale is to be granted if an employee remains stagnant on the pay-scale for one year after reaching maximum pay-scale. He has stated that as per Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994, the petitioner is denied higher pay-scales, as Paragraph No. 3 of the resolution specifies that the higher pay-scale is to be granted if an employee remains stagnant on the pay-scale for one year after reaching maximum pay-scale. Since the petitioner did not reach reach the maximum of pay-scale on completion of 18 and 27 years of service, she is not entitled for the second and third higher pay-scales. He has stated that necessary orders were issued on 29.10.2005 to the petitioner sanctioning the first higher pay-scale w.e.f 01.06.1987 5. Heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties. 6. The stand taken by the learned Assistant Government Pleader is misconceived as paragraph 3 of the Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994 on which the reliance is placed for denying the claim of the petitioner is not applicable to the case of the petitioner as she has completed 9-8-27 years before issuance of the said Government Resolution. Attention was also invited to the Government Resolution dated 05.07.1991 by the learned Assistant Government Pleader by stating that Paragraph No. 10 of the said Government Resolution forbids grant of higher pay-scale to the petitioner as she has not stagnated in her pay-scale. The said contention is also misconceived. Government Resolution 05.07.1991 does not lay down such condition about the entitlement of the higher pay scale after remaining stagnated for one year as envisaged in Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994 Learned Assistant Government Pleader was also unable to controvert the statement made in the petition that similarly situated employees/coleagues of the petitioner viz. Mrs. Lilamma Thomas and Mrs. Geetaben Anjaria, were granted three higher pay-scales, vide orders annexed at Annexure-E and Annexure-F to the petition. The petitioner at the relevant time had approached the Tribunal claiming the higher pay scale but her application was adjourned sine die by the Tribunal in view of pendency of the dispute regarding its jurisdiction. The issue that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in entertaining the application filed for non-grant of higher pay-scale has already been settled by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.04.2015 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1829 of 2004. 7. The petitioner would be entitled to all the three higher pay-scales in the respective dates as mentioned in the prayer clause. 7. The petitioner would be entitled to all the three higher pay-scales in the respective dates as mentioned in the prayer clause. The petitioner is entitled to the similarly treatment as is given to the two colleagues of her. Similar and necessary orders to that effect of granting three higher pay-scales shall be passed by the respondent authorities within a period of 03 (three) months from today. Since the petitioner was discriminated in granting the benefit of higher pay-scales for no fault on her part, she would be entitled to the interest of 9% on the amount she would receive after adjustment of her first higher pay scale which was granted w.e.f 1.6.1987 Such interest shall be paid from the date of filing of the present writ petition. Petition is allowed. Rule made absolute.