Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 2219 (GUJ)

Bhartiben Nandkishor Dave v. State Of Gujarat

2024-12-17

NIRZAR S.DESAI

body2024
JUDGMENT : (NIRZAR S. DESAI, J.) 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Mehul Sharma for learned advocate Mr. Vyom Shah for the petitioner and learned AGP Ms. Nirali Sarda for the respondent – State. 2. With the consent of the parties, the matter was taken up finally. Hence, RULE returnable;e forthwith. Learned AGP Ms. Nirali Sarda waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent – State. 3. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to fix pay of the petitioner who has completed five years in the selection grade on 01.01.1996 at the stage of Rs. 14,940/- in the pay scale of Rs. 12,000/- – 18,300/- in accordance with Government Resolution dated 08.02.2008 issued by the Education Department and further prayed for granting the revised Selection Grade of Rs. 37,000/- – 67,000/- with Academic Grade Pay of Rs. 9000/- with effect from 01.01.2006 as per the Government Resolution issued by the Education Department dated 04.12.2009 with all the consequential benefits including arrears of pay and allowances and revision of pensionary benefits and other retirement benefits of the petitioner who has already retired and therefore, to pay the arrears of pensionary benefits flowing from such directions with interest. 4. The brief facts of the case as canvassed by learned Senior Advocate Mr. G. M. Joshi assisted by learned advocate Mr. Mehul Sharma are as under:- 4.1. That the petitioner was appointed in service on 15.07.1972 and retired on 31.03.2007 after serving for 35 years as Librarian at Nursing College, Civil Hospital College and B. J. Medical College. 4.2. It is case of the petitioner that the college in which she was working was affiliated to B. J. Medical College in the State of Gujarat. It is case of the petitioner that pursuant to the recommendation of the UGC, the Education Department of the State revised the pay scale of Librarians working under Colleges/Universities in the State of Gujarat on completion of 8 years of their service and thereafter on completion of 16 years of service. The petitioner being Medical Librarians were also granted such benefits and selection grade w.e.f. 01.01.1996. Thereafter, the Education Department under Government Resolution dated 08.02.2008 provided that the Librarians working under Colleges/Universities of the State Government are entitled to the pay scale of Rs. The petitioner being Medical Librarians were also granted such benefits and selection grade w.e.f. 01.01.1996. Thereafter, the Education Department under Government Resolution dated 08.02.2008 provided that the Librarians working under Colleges/Universities of the State Government are entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 10000-15200 and senior scale of Rs.12000-18000 towards the selection grade at 6 and 11 years instead of 8 and 16 years and the Librarians who have completed 5 years are eligible for selection grade w.e.f 01.01.1996. It was also provided that their pay should be fixed at Rs.14,940/- in the pay scale of Rs.12000-18000. One more resolution was passed dated 11.11.2009 giving the higher pay scale of Rs.15600-39100 from 01.01.2006 to the Librarians working with the State Government. It is the case of the petitioner that since many Librarians of Medical and Dental College were granted revised pay scale of Rs.15600-39100 w.e.f. 01.01.2006, however denied the selection grade of Rs.37000-67000 as per Schedule ‘A’ of Government Resolution dated 08.02.2008 and 04.12.2009, she preferred the petition before this Court for her non-grant of selection grade. 4.3. This Court vide order dated 19.02.2019 passed in Special Civil Application No. 7297 of 2014 in case of Rajeshri Pravin Khatri and Others V/s. State of Gujarat and Others granted the benefit under Government Resolutions dated 08.02.2008 and 04.12.2009 to the petitioners therein. It is the case of the petitioner that she is similarly situated to the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 7297 of 2014, despite that she has been denied the said benefits. Hence, the present petition is filed. 5. It was also pointed out by learned advocate Mr. Sharma for the petitioner that thereafter one more similarly situated person namely Sureshbhai Keshurbhai Patel approached this Court seeking similar benefits by filing Special Civil Application No. 9212 of 2022 which was allowed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 31.07.2023. 6. By relying upon aforesaid two decisions, it was submitted by learned advocate Mr. Sharma that similar benefits be extended to the petitioner as well by way of this petition. 7. Learned AGP Ms. 6. By relying upon aforesaid two decisions, it was submitted by learned advocate Mr. Sharma that similar benefits be extended to the petitioner as well by way of this petition. 7. Learned AGP Ms. Nirali Sadra appearing for the respondent – State vehemently opposed this petition by stating that the present petitioner is a fence-sitter and when the other similarly situated person succeeded in the year 2019, the present petitioner preferred the petition even three years thereafter in the year 2022 and therefore, she may not be granted any benefit on account of delay in challenging the inaction on the part of the respondents as she was a fence-sitter. She also pointed out that the other similarly situated persons approached this Court in the year 2009 and 2014. However the petitioner never cared to prefer any petition for assertion of her rights and therefore, as the petitioner has approached this Court belatedly, this petition may be dismissed on the ground of delay itself. 8. I have heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the record. On perusal of record, I found that the similarly situated persons preferred a petition being Special Civil Application No. 7297 of 2014 and 7298 of 2014 and after considering the case of the petitioners of that petitions, the Coordinate Bench has allowed the petition and granted benefits as prayed for by the petitioners of that petition. 9. The aforesaid judgment was considered by the another Coordinate Bench in the case of Sureshbhai Keshurbhai Patel (supra) and while considering the case of the judgment in case of Rajeshri Pravin Khatri and others, another Coordinate Bench its order dated 31.07.2023 observed as under:- 7. Considered the submissions. It is noticed that this Court in the order dated 18.10.2019, in Special Civil Application No. 7297 of 2014 while considering the case of the petitioners therein has held as under:- “6.8 Further, there appears to be a complete nonapplication of mind which is clearly emerging from the record that role of University Grant Commission is not depending upon a situation whether the Government colleges is receiving grant or not from the UGC. On the contrary, earlier directions have not been challenged further rather have been implemented. Hence, in this set of circumstance, the Court is of the opinion that case is made out by the petitioner to seek relief as prayed for. On the contrary, earlier directions have not been challenged further rather have been implemented. Hence, in this set of circumstance, the Court is of the opinion that case is made out by the petitioner to seek relief as prayed for. Accordingly, while quashing and setting aside the impugned decision dated 18.01.2014, the respondent authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in context of prayer of para:7(B) and grant necessary consequential benefits as prayed for by making appropriate calculation the respondent authorities are further directed to extend the benefits to the petitioners within a period of four months from the date of receipt of writ of this Court.” 8. It is not in dispute that the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 7297 of 2014 were the Librarians working in the Medical Colleges either Medical / Dental / Ayurveda or other colleges wherein the benefit of higher pay scale has been extended. The said benefits were not granted to present petitioners. 9. It would be appropriate to note that respondent No.1 on 6.6.2019 called for the details of the petitioners pursuant to the order passed in Special Civil Application No.7297 of 2014. Respondent No.4 vide letter dated 8.6.2019 provided the information of the petitioners with necessary details. However, respondent No.1 implemented judgment in Special Civil Application No.7297 of 2014 qua the said petitioners only. 10. Moreover, it is also not in dispute that the petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 7297 of 2014 have been granted the benefit and paid the difference as referred in Annexure-H Pg. No. 70. 11. In view of above, the respondent authorities are directed to consider the case of petitioners herein if they are otherwise found eligible and to grant the benefit available to them as per Government Resolutions dated 08.02.2008 and 04.12.2009 and also as per the order of this Court dated 19.02.2019, in Special Civil Application No. 7297 of 2014. This exercise shall be completed within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the order. 12. With the above directions, this petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute. 10. Considering the fact that learned AGP Ms. This exercise shall be completed within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the order. 12. With the above directions, this petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute. 10. Considering the fact that learned AGP Ms. Sarda though opposed the petition on the ground of delay, she could not point out from the record that the facts of the present petitioner is different from the facts of the case in case of Rajshriben (supra) and Suresh (supra) and therefore, the only ground that was canvassed was that the petitioner has approached this Court belatedly. 11. Considering the fact that the petitioner is seeking benefits flowing in her favour on account of a decision in respect of similarly situated persons dated 19.02.2019 in case of Rajeshri Pravin Khatri (supra) and it was pointed out during the course of argument by learned advocate Mr. Sharma that the petitioner is amongst the only two persons who are not granted this benefits, the petitioner is also required to be treated in similar manner as compelled to other similarly situated persons. Accordingly, the present petition is required to be allowed by issuing direction which are as under:- In view of above, the respondent authorities are directed to consider the case of petitioner herein if she is otherwise found eligible and to grant the benefit available to her as per Government Resolutions dated 08.02.2008 and 04.12.2009 and also as per the order of this Court dated 19.02.2019, in Special Civil Application No. 7297 of 2014. This exercise shall be completed within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the order. 12. With the aforesaid direction, the petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.