Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1068 (GUJ)

NATVARLAL SHAMBHULAL VYAS v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2022-09-26

BIREN VAISHNAV

body2022
JUDGMENT : BIREN VAISHNAV, J. 1. RULE returnable forthwith. Mr. Kurven Desai learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent/State. 2. With the consent of learned advocates for the respective parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. Mr. A.S. Asthavadi learned advocate for the petitioner states that the case of the petitioner is covered by the decision of this Court in case of Chunibhai Nanjibhai Bhanderi v. State of Gujarat rendered in Special Civil Application No. 9248 of 2022. 4. The above said decision reads as under: “1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Sharma, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule for the respondent/State. 2. With the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing today. 3. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for a direction to the respondent to grant the benefits of higher grade pay scale as per the GR dated 1.3.1993. 4. Mr. Asthavadi, learned counsel for the petitioners would draw the attention of the Court to the Oral Judgment dated 9.8.2016 passed in SCA No. 7071 of 1997 and allied matters of the Division Bench of this Court and submit that the petitioners of those petitions had approached this Court who were also like the present petitioners retired Agricultural Assistants and Agricultural Supervisors. They had approached the Court for granting the benefit of the Resolution dated 1.3.1993. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment dated 9.8.2016 are reproduced hereunder: “7.00. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. 7.01. At the outset, it is required to be noted that by way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the respective petitioners who are retired as Agricultural Assistants/Agricultural Professors have, as such, prayed higher grade scale on completion of 9/18/27 years of service as per Government Resolution dated 1.3.1993. It is required to be noted that the respective petitioners are not claiming higher grade scale as per Government Resolution dated 5.7.1991. Under the circumstances, as such the conditions stipulated in the Government Resolution dated 5.7.1991 shall not be applicable when the claim of the respective petitioners for higher pay grade was not pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 5.7.1991 but it was under Government Resolution dated 1.3.1993. 7.02. Under the circumstances, as such the conditions stipulated in the Government Resolution dated 5.7.1991 shall not be applicable when the claim of the respective petitioners for higher pay grade was not pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 5.7.1991 but it was under Government Resolution dated 1.3.1993. 7.02. It is required to be noted that Government Resolution dated 1.3.1993 under which the respective petitioners are claiming benefits of higher pay scale, has been issued with respect to the particular department and particular post and was issued in the peculiar facts and circumstances and having noticed that in view of the decision taken by the Government to fill up 100% posts of Agricultural Officer, Class-II by direct recruitment, the employees like the petitioners - Agricultural Assistants/Agricultural Supervisors may not get promotion and therefore, a special higher grade scale has been fixed. It is required to be noted and it is not in dispute that the higher grade scale provided in the Government Resolution dated 1.3.1993 and the higher grade scale of the next promotional post i.e. Agricultural Assistants/Agricultural Supervisors is altogether different. It is required to be noted that in the Government Resolution dated 1.3.1993, of which the respective petitioners are claiming benefits of higher grade scale, no such conditions have been mentioned which are there in the Government Resolution dated 5.7.1991. Under the circumstances, to deny the benefits of higher grade scale as per Government Resolution dated 1.3.1993 relying upon the conditions stipulated in Government Resolution dated 5.7.1991 would be illegal and arbitrary and as such contrary to the object and purpose of issuing Government Resolution dated 1.3.1993. It is required to be noted that even Government Resolution dated 1.3.1993 was issued after considering Government Resolution dated 5.7.1991 and even the same was sent to the Finance Department also. Under the circumstances, to deny benefits of higher grade scale provided under Government Resolution dated 1.3.1993 on completion of service of 9/18/27 years would be illegal and arbitrary. 7.03. At this stage, it is required to be noted that some of the employees in other Divisions, like Rajkot, etc. who were similarly situated to the petitioners, were granted benefits of Government Resolution dated 1.3.1993. Therefore, denial of the benefits of higher grade scale as per Government Resolution dated 1.3.1993 would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 7.04. who were similarly situated to the petitioners, were granted benefits of Government Resolution dated 1.3.1993. Therefore, denial of the benefits of higher grade scale as per Government Resolution dated 1.3.1993 would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 7.04. Under the aforesaid circumstances, as such we are of the opinion that there is no conflict between the decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of Khodidas M. Parmar vs. State of Gujarat and Others rendered in Special Civil Application No. 3150 of 1998 and decision of the learned Single Judge in the present case. As observed hereinabove, the learned Single Judge in the case of Khodidas M. Parmar (supra) was considering the grant of benefits under Government Resolution dated 5.7.1991 and not benefits flowing under Government Resolution dated 1.3.1993 which as observed hereinabove was issued in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case narrated in the said Government Resolution dated 1.3.1993 and said Government Resolution was issued as a special case with respect to a particular department and particular post. 8.00. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all these appeals succeed. The impugned action of the respondent denying benefits of higher pay scale to the respective petitioners as per Government Resolution dated 1.3.1993 on completion of service of 9/18/27 years, as the case may be, is hereby quashed and set aside and it is held that the respective petitioners shall be entitled to benefits of higher pay scale/higher grade scale as per Government Resolution dated 1.3.1993. The concerned respondents are directed to grant benefits of higher pay scale as per Government Resolution dated 1.3.1993 to the respective petitioners on their completion of 9/18/27 years’ and calculate the pension and pay arrears accordingly within a period of three months. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent in each of the petitions. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.” 5. In the contempt proceedings filed by the concerned petitioners, the benefits were extended to the petitioners by virtue of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court. 6. Mr. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent in each of the petitions. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.” 5. In the contempt proceedings filed by the concerned petitioners, the benefits were extended to the petitioners by virtue of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court. 6. Mr. Asthavadi would also rely on an Oral Judgment dated 17.2.2022 passed in SCA No. 1205 of 2020 of this Court, by which, the respondents were directed to consider the case of those petitioners keeping in mind the parity principle laid down by this Court in the decision of Vipulkumar Atmaram Parekh vs. State of Gujarat through Secretary and Others in SCA No. 1314 of 2009. Paras 8 to 10 of the decision dated 17.2.2022 passed in SCA No. 1205 of 2020 are reproduced hereunder: “8. Considering the issues raised in the petition and the decisions as aforesaid, the communication dated 18.10.2019 is quashed only on the ground of rejecting the case of the petitioner on the ground that he was not the petitioner before this Court in decision dated 09.08.2016. 9. It will be open for the respondents to consider the matter afresh and take a fresh decision in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 10. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.” 7. In light of these observations made in the aforesaid two orders of this Court, the petition is allowed. Thereby, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the present petitioners and grant the similar benefits as those granted to the petitioners of SCA No. 7071 of 1997 vide order dated 9.8.2016. The case of the petitioners be considered in accordance with law and a decision be taken within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. 8. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct Service is permitted. No order as to costs.” 5. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. Thereby, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the present petitioners and grant the similar benefits as those granted to the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 7071 of 1997 vide order dated 9.8.2016. Direct Service is permitted. No order as to costs.” 5. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. Thereby, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the present petitioners and grant the similar benefits as those granted to the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 7071 of 1997 vide order dated 9.8.2016. The case of the petitioners be considered in accordance with law and a decision be taken within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. 6. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct Service is permitted. No order as to costs.