Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 133 (GUJ)

Sureshchandra Ramlakhan Yadav v. State of Gujarat

2025-02-19

A.S.SUPEHIA, GITA GOPI

body2025
ORDER : (A.S. SUPEHIA, J.) 1. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 27.11.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant inter alia praying for the following relief : “5(B) That the Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order holding that petitioner is deemed to have been appointed in August 2000 and deemed to have been placed in regular pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 with effect from August 2002 at par with other teachers recruited pursuant to advertisement dated 7-5-2000 and entitled to higher pay scale from 2011 and also the benefit of GPF as per the order of this Hon’ble Court dated 31-8-2004 passed in SCA/10446/2000 and direct the respondents to give benefits to the petitioner accordingly.” 2. The appellant was appointed by the order dated 31.01.2005 on honorarium basis of Rs.2,500/-, pursuant to the directions issued by this Court vide judgement and order dated 31.08.2004 passed in Special Civil Application Nos.10446 of 2000 and 10465 of 2000. He accepted the aforesaid appointment order and after a period of 16 years, he has filed the captioned writ petition for holding him “deemed to have been appointed in August, 2000 and deemed to have been placed in a regular pay-scale w.e.f. 2002 at par with other Vidhya Sahayaks/teachers recruited pursuant to the advertisement dated 07.05.2000” and further grant him higher pay-scale from 2011 and also the benefit of General Provident Fund (GPF), as per the judgement and order dated 31.08.2004 passed in Special Civil Application Nos.10446. 3. The learned Single Judge, after recording the relevant facts and after considering the decision dated 31.08.2004, has rejected the captioned writ petition by observing thus: “11. With regard to the submissions made by the learned advocate for the petitioner, it was submitted that the petitioner is given the benefit of a regular employee on completion of five years as Vidhya Sahayak considering the date of his appointment in the year 2000 as per the order of this Court and as such benefits of permanent employee were given to the petitioner which is not in dispute. It was submitted that the petitioner was appointed pursuant to the order passed by this Court in the post of Vidhya Sahayak in the year 2005 and instead of benefit under GPF, the petitioner was given the benefit under CPF in the year 2010 as per the prevailing policy and therefore, the petitioner cannot raise any grievance with regard thereto. 12. Considering the above rival submissions, it appears that the petitioner though has been appointed pursuant to the order passed by this Court on the post of Vidhya Sahayak in the year 2005 on the fixed pay of Rs.2,500/- and thereafter considering the deem date of appointment of the petitioner as 2000, the service of the petitioner was regularized with effect from 30.08.2005. The petitioner was also given the benefit of GPF up to 2010 and thereafter the petitioner was given the benefit of CPF in the year 2010 for which the petitioner has not raised any grievance for almost 10 years.” 4. Learned advocate Mr.Iyer appearing for the appellant has submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is required to be quashed as the appellant is also entitled to the similar pay-scale, which has been granted to the other candidates. He has submitted that the case of the appellant is governed by the Policy of the State Government dated 08.03.2019 introduced by the State Government in case of the Vidhya Sahayaks, who have been appointed for 5 years on a fixed pay-scale. He has submitted that the State Government has introduced the aforesaid policy for appointing Vidhya Sahayak on fixed pay and the period, which has been rendered by them on fixed pay, is required to be considered for the purpose of pension. Thus, it is urged that the aforesaid period, which the appellant has rendered on honorarium basis of Rs.2,500/-, is also required to be considered for the purpose of fixation of pay and pension. 5. We do not agree with the submissions advanced by the learned advocate Mr.Iyer. 6. The prayers made in the writ petition are misconceived. Thus, it is urged that the aforesaid period, which the appellant has rendered on honorarium basis of Rs.2,500/-, is also required to be considered for the purpose of fixation of pay and pension. 5. We do not agree with the submissions advanced by the learned advocate Mr.Iyer. 6. The prayers made in the writ petition are misconceived. The petitioner has prayed that he should be “deemed to have been appointed in August, 2000 and deemed to have been placed in a regular pay-scale w.e.f. 2002 at par with other Vidhya Sahayaks / Teachers recruited pursuant to the advertisement dated 07.05.2000” and further grant him higher pay-scale from 2011 and also the benefit of General Provident Fund (GPF), as per the judgement and order dated 31.08.2004. 7. Thus, he is praying for granting the regular pay-scale by deeming fiction with retrospective effect as per the decision dated 31.08.2004. We do not find any such direction issued by this Court in the said judgement. The directions issued by the learned Single Judge in the judgement and order dated 31.08.2004, are as under: “4.2. Considering the facts of the case, as well as considering the decisions of the Apex Court referred to above, it is clear that the petitioners were eligible from the date of advertisement and the respondents should have considered them for the post of "Vidhya Sahayak". However, change of Rules during the selection process is not permissible, and, therefore, the respondents will consider the case of the petitioners, if they are otherwise eligible on merits, they should be appointed on the post of "Vidhya Sahayak". It is made clear that upper age factor will not come in the way of the petitioners while considering the case of the petitioners by the respondents. 4.3 This exercise will be done and completed within one month from the date of receipt of the writ of this order. It is clarified that the persons who are selected will be given seniority from the date on which other persons were appointed pursuant to the advertisement, but they will not be entitled for salary from that date.” 8. The appellant has accepted the appointment order dated 31.01.2005, which was passed in the year 2005, as per the directions issued by this Court in the judgement and order dated 31.08.2004. He was appointed on honorarium of Rs.2,500/- as Vidhya Sahayak. The appellant has accepted the appointment order dated 31.01.2005, which was passed in the year 2005, as per the directions issued by this Court in the judgement and order dated 31.08.2004. He was appointed on honorarium of Rs.2,500/- as Vidhya Sahayak. Thereafter, he is appointed for five years on fixed pay as per the order dated 01.04.2006. The condition No.6 of the said order mentions that the appellant is placed in a fixed pay for 5 years. Condition No.9 refers that the date of placing the appellant in the regular pay-scale would be relevant for deciding his pension, leave, insurance etc. and the earlier service rendered by him as Vidhya Sahayak will not be considered for any benefits. Thus, the order has been accepted by the appellant and the same has not been assailed. Thereafter, he has been made regular w.e.f 31.08.2005. The appellant was governed by Contributory Provident Fund, and he is also granted the higher pay-scale w.e.f 31.08.2014 on completion of 9 years of service. 9. Having accepted such appointment orders, the appellant has filed the captioned writ petition seeking direction that he should be deemed to have been appointed in August, 2000 and deemed to have been placed in regular pay-scale of Rs.4000- 6000 w.e.f. August, 2002 that too, as per the directions issued by this Court in the judgement and order dated 31.08.2004, which this Court has never directed. 10. The final direction issued by this Court in the said order only clarifies that the persons, who are selected will be given seniority on the date from which other persons were appointed pursuant to the advertisement, but they will not be entitled for salary from that day. Accordingly, the appellant has accepted all the orders. Now he is seeking fixation of pay-scale and pension w.e.f. August, 2000 and August, 2002 respectively. 11. It is pertinent to note that New Pension Scheme came in effect from 01.04.2005 and the appellant was appointed on honorarium basis of Rs.2,500/- from 31.01.2005. In the considered opinion of this Court, the appellant cannot claim the benefit of his appointment, which was made on honorarium basis in the year 2005, as he did not challenge his appointment order and accepted the same appointing him on honorarium basis. 12. In view of the foregoing observations, the present appeal fails. The same stands rejected.