Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 925 (GUJ)

Patel Rajanikant Zinabhai v. State of Gujarat

2019-10-16

A.S.SUPEHIA

body2019
JUDGMENT : A.S. Supehia, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking direction on the respondent authority to absorb the petitioners in regular pay-scale of Rs. 5200-20200 from the date of their completion of 2 years of service as incorporated in their appointment orders while appointing them as Assistant Teachers. 2. Learned advocate Ms. Pandya appearing for the petitioners has invited the attention to the policy dated 15.04.2010, by which the State Government has regulated the appointment of Vidhya Sahayak and accordingly, the petitioners applied for the same and after undergoing the regular selection process, they were appointed vide orders dated 03.07.2010. 2.1. Learned advocate Ms. Pandya has further submitted that as per the condition No. 12 incorporated in the appointment orders, the petitioners are required to be placed in the regular pay-scale after completion of 2 years of service, however the respondent authorities did not do the same and hence, they were constrained to file a representation before the State authority. She has submitted that by the communication dated 20th September 2014, the Director of Primary Education informed all the concerned District Primary Education officers to carry out necessary exercise so that such Vidhya Sahayaks, who have completed 2 years of service can be placed in the regular pay-scale. She has further submitted that in view of the aforesaid communication, Vidhya Sahayaks of other districts viz. Valsad, Bharuch, Rajkot etc. have been given the benefits of regular pay-scale of Rs. 5200-20200 after completion of 2 years of service and the petitioners, who were serving under Navsari district have been left out. She has submitted that the aforesaid benefit of regular pay-scale of Rs. 5200-20200 cannot be denied to the petitioners since the State Government modified its policy vide resolution dated 27.04.2011. She has submitted that the policy dated 15.04.2010, pursuant to which the petitioners, who were appointed is not cancelled or rescinded and hence, the petitioners cannot denied the benefit by discriminating them. Thus, she has submitted that the present writ petition may be allowed. 3. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr. She has submitted that the policy dated 15.04.2010, pursuant to which the petitioners, who were appointed is not cancelled or rescinded and hence, the petitioners cannot denied the benefit by discriminating them. Thus, she has submitted that the present writ petition may be allowed. 3. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr. Munshaw appearing for respondents No. 3 and 4 has submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to be placed in the regular pay-scale after completion of 2 years of service since subsequently the State Government has modified the policy vide resolution dated 27.04.2011, which specifically states that the Vidhya Sahayak after completion of 5 years of service are to be placed in the pay-scale of Rs. 5200-20200 and hence, the petitioners, who have completed 5 years of service, have been given the aforesaid benefits. 4. Learned AGP Mr. Ishan Joshi has adopted the submissions advanced by the learned advocate Mr. Munshaw and submitted that in view of changed policy, the petitioners are conferred the benefits by placing them on regular pay-scale of Rs. 5200-20200 and hence, they cannot claim to be placed in the regular pay scale after completion of 2 years of service. 5. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 6. In the present case, the undisputed fact remains that the petitioners are appointed vide orders dated 03.07.2010 in view of the policy dated 15.04.2010. The condition No. 12 of the appointment order, specifically narrates that after completion of 2 years of service as Vidhya Sahayak, they will be placed in the pay-scale of Rs. 5200-20200. This condition has been incorporated in their appointment orders in view of the condition No. 13 of the original policy/Government Resolution dated 03.04.2010, by which the State Government has introduced the policy appointing the Vidhya Sahayaks. 7. Thus, the services of the petitioners are governed by the conditions incorporated in their appointment orders. Despite the aforesaid policy as well as appointment orders, the State Government did not place them in the regular pay-scale of Rs. 5200-20200 in view of the subsequent resolution dated 27.04.2011, which can be termed as an illegal and arbitrary action. 8. 7. Thus, the services of the petitioners are governed by the conditions incorporated in their appointment orders. Despite the aforesaid policy as well as appointment orders, the State Government did not place them in the regular pay-scale of Rs. 5200-20200 in view of the subsequent resolution dated 27.04.2011, which can be termed as an illegal and arbitrary action. 8. It is pertinent to note that the Director of Education vide communication dated 20th September 2014, addressed to all the concerned District Primary Education Officers, had specifically called for the information about the Vidhya Sahayaks, who are appointed prior to the issuance of resolution dated 27.04.2011 are still left out of being regularized. Thereafter, in other districts the Vidhya Sahayaks were placed in the regular pay-scale after completion of 2 years of service by various orders dated 12.11.2014, one of which is placed at Annexure-G. Thus, the petitioners cannot be discriminated due to the remissness of the respondents No. 3 and 4 in carrying out necessary exercise in their district by not placing them in the pay-scale of Rs. 5200-20200 after completion of 2 years of service. 9. A perusal of the resolution dated 24.04.2011 reveals that vide condition No. 14, the State Government has decided to place such Vidhyasahayaks after completion of 5 years of service. The resolution dated 27.04.2011 cannot be made applicable to the petitioners since they are appointed in view of the resolution dated 15.04.2010 and their service conditions are governed by the same. The resolution dated 27.04.2011 can only be made applicable prospectively to those Vidhya Sahayaks, who are appointed pursuant to it. Unless it is specifically provided in the resolution dated 27.04.2011 that it will have retrospective effect and the appointments made pursuant to the former resolution dated 15.04.2010 will be governed by the same, the respondents cannot deny the benefits arising out of the resolution dated 15.04.2010. Furthermore, it is not disputed that the resolution dated 15.04.2010 is implemented in other districts. 10. In this view of the matter, the petitioners cannot be discriminated and be denied the benefit of regular pay-scale after completion of 2 years of service as envisaged in their appointment orders as well as the policy dated 15.04.2010. The respondents are hereby directed to place the petitioners in the regular pay-scale of Rs. 5200-20200 after completion of 2 years of service from the date of their appointment orders. The respondents are hereby directed to place the petitioners in the regular pay-scale of Rs. 5200-20200 after completion of 2 years of service from the date of their appointment orders. The respondents are also directed to pay the consequential arrears to the petitioners. Necessary orders shall be passed within a period of 02 (two) months from the date of receipt of the writ of this order. 11. The present writ petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.