The court ruled that the petitioners were not entitled to a higher grade pay of Rs.2800/- as they failed to demonstrate their eligibility based on the established promotional hierarchy.

ORDER :

(Per : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.)

Heard. Rule. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioners question the fixation of their pay scale with grade pay of Rs.2400/- instead of Rs.2800/- while granting them a time-bound promotion to the next higher post. Hence, they preferred this petition to direct respondent No.1 to fix their pay scale at Rs.2800/-.

3. Petitioner Nos.1 to 4 were appointed as ‘Hydrant Mistry’ in the “Fire Brigade Department” of the Corporation on 29-10-2004, 24-08-2004, 18-08-2004 and 02-11-2004, respectively, in the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590/-. By Resolution No.97 dated 18-05-2015, the post of Hydrant Mistry was abolished, and they were absorbed/transferred to the other departments of the Corporation by protecting their existing pay scale with equivalent grade pay. Accordingly, by order dated 14-12-2016, petitioner No.1 was absorbed into the post of ‘Library Assistant’ and petitioners Nos.2 to 4 were absorbed into the post of ‘Tax Collector’. Respondent No.1-Corporation had extended the benefit of time-bound promotion to the petitioners in view of the Circular dated 21-10-2011.

4. The petitioners were dissatisfied with the said time-bound promotion granted to them, as the same was not given in the next higher pay scale, for which they were eligible for the post of ‘Senior Leading Fireman’, and the grade pay of the said post was Rs.2800/-. Therefore, they have made representations from time to time to the respondents for granting them grade pay of Rs.2800/-. However, the respondents ignored the fact that the petitioners were appointed Hydrant Mistry, and their next promotional post would be ‘Senior Leading Fireman’, therefore, they were eligible for time-bound promotional pay from the grade pay of Rs.1900/- to grade pay of Rs.2800/-. However, they were granted grade pay of Rs.2400/-. Being aggrieved by the same, they have preferred this petition.

5. Mr. S.S. Sanyal, learned Counsel for the petitioners, strenuously argued that the petitioners were appointed from August 2004 to November 2004 and completed their twelve years of service before 30-11-2016. By order dated 14-12-2016, they were absorbed on other posts. However, the respondents did not consider the said facts while giving benefits of the time-bound promotions and erred in granting grade pay of Rs.2400/- to them, contrary to the conditions in the Circular dated 21-10-2011. He has drawn our attention to Resolution No.97 dated 18-05-2015, passed by respondent No.1 and contended that the petitioners were absorbed on the equivalent pay scale in other departments of the Corporation. Their pay scale was mentioned as Rs.5200-20200/- with grade pay of Rs.1900/- and, therefore, after granting the benefit of the time-bound promotion, the petitioners were entitled to the higher grade pay of Rs.2800/-, but the respondents erred in granting grade pay of Rs.2400/- only. Respondent No.1-Corporation did not apply its mind while granting the same nor considered the representations of the petitioners in that regard. Therefore, the said order of fixation of pay scale with grade pay of Rs.2400/- instead of Rs.2800/- is illegal, arbitrary, and liable to be quashed and set aside. Hence, he urged to allow the petition.

6. On the contrary, Mr. J.B. Kasat, learned Counsel for the respondents, vehemently opposes the petition, contending that by order dated 14-12-2016, petitioner No.1 was absorbed as ‘Library Assistant’ and petitioner Nos.2 to 4 were absorbed as ‘Tax Inspectors’ from the post of ‘