Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1762 (GUJ)

Gujarat Maritime Board v. Hitesh R. Mehta

2017-10-30

R.SUBHASH REDDY, VIPUL M.PANCHOLI

body2017
ORDER : R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. The Gujarat Maritime Board, which is the original respondent in Special Civil Application No. 14690 of 2013, is the appellant in this appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge dated 18.02.2016 2. The aforesaid Special Civil Application was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayers, which read as under; “(A) Allow this petition. (B) Declare that the petitioner is entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Senior Clerk on and from the date of his initial appointment on 10.05.1982 and/or is entitled to the benefits of the second higher grade scale on completion of 24 years of service from the date of 10.05.1982 and further declare that the petitioner is entitled to be promoted to the post of Senior Clerk and/or entitled to the benefit of second higher grade scale on completion of 24 years of service from 10.05.1982 (C) Direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of senior Clerk on and from the date of his initial appointment of 10.05.1982 and/or to consider his case for awarding him the benefit of the second higher grade scale on completion of 24 years of service from 10.05.1982 being his date of initial appointment on the post under the respondent Gujarat Maritime Board. (D) Direct the respondents to consider and decide the representations made to the respondent Board and further direct the respondents to promote the petitioner on the post of Senior Clerk and/or grant the benefit of the second higher grade scale on completion of 24 years from 10.05.1982 and further promote the petitioner from the date his juniors been promoted by granting him an appropriate deemed date of promotion to the post of Senior Clerk from the date his juniors are promoted on the said post. (E) By way of interim relief, pending final hearing of this petition, the respondents be restrained from making further promotions to the post of Senior Clerk without considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the said post and further by an interim order direct the respondents to grant the benefit of the second higher grade scale on completion of 24 years of service from the date of 10.05.1982 to the petitioner forthwith.” 3. The learned single Judge, while over-ruling the objections raised by the appellant-Board, has held that the respondent-employee is entitled to the benefits of second higher grade scale and further directed that any other benefits that may accrue on account of grant of second higher grade scale be also extended to the respondent-employee. 4. The order of the learned single Judge has been challenged by the learned counsel for the appellant-Board mainly on two grounds. Firstly, it is contended that as the respondent-employee was not a regular employee, as such he is not entitled to get benefits of second higher grade scale. It is further submitted that there was delay and latches on the part of the respondent-employee, as he was claiming benefit, which was due in the year 2006, by filing the Special Civil Application in the year 2013. 5. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent-employee was extended benefit of first higher grade scale along with other regular employees. Having extended such benefits and continued the respondent-employee in service till he attained the age of superannuation in the year 2014, it is not open for the appellant-Board to plead that as the respondent-employee was not a regular employee, he is not entitled to get benefits of the second higher grade scale. Even the aspect of delay raised by the appellant is not convincing. As per the respondent-employee, he was entitled for the second higher grade scale in the year 2006 itself and when the appellant-employer did not extend the benefit, he approached this Court in the year 2013 before his retirement. Having delayed the grant of benefit of second higher grade scale, the appellant-Board cannot attribute such delay on the respondent-employee in claiming the benefits. The appellant, being a statutory Board, ought to have extended the benefits, which are due to the respondent-employee, on its own. 6. Having regard to the same and having regard to the reasons recorded by the learned single Judge, we do not find any merits in this appeal so as to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge. 7. The Letters Patent Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.