2020 Supreme(Guj) 450

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SANGEETA K. VISHEN, J.
Gujarat Municipal and Panchayat Kamdar Association & Others – Petitioners
Versus
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation & others – Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 18165 of 2015
Decided On : 09-06-2020

Point of Law:
It is well settled that though no limitation is provided for invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; however, the Apex Court has time and again cautioned that it is incumbent upon the party invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction to approach the court promptly for enforcement of his/her right. The Apex Court in the case of Shiv Dass vs. Union of India reported in (2007) 9 SCC 274 where, the appellant, though had been relieved from service somewhere in the year 1983 filed a writ petition in the year 2005 with a prayer for grant of disability pension.

Headnote:

Gujarat Civil Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 1987 - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Petition is filed seeking direction to Municipal Corporation Respondent to extend benefits of revised pay-scales of Head Clerk and as per Sixth Pay Commission with effect from working with Respondent Corporation or who were working with Respondent Corporation - Further direction has been sought for payment of arrears of salaries and retirement benefits in case of retired/expired Head Clerk together with simple interest - Petitioner upon introduction of Fourth Pay Commission State Government in its Finance Department framed Gujarat Civil Services - Revising pay-scales of employees working with State Government - By virtue of said Rules of cadre of Senior Assistant/Assistant Accountant/Senior Store Keeper/Head Clerk were merged and re-designated as Head Clerk - Respondent Corporation through its Chief Accountant Department circular number while considering Resolutions - Central Government introduced Sixth Pay Commission which was accepted and implemented by State Government for its officers and employees with effect from framing Gujarat Civil Services - Respondent Corporation in its Finance Department extended benefits of Sixth Pay Commission with effect from all its officers and employees in line with State Government - Held, Judgment cited by counsel for Respondent Corporation cannot be made applicable to present case judgments deal with issue of implementation of recommendation of pay commission from a particular date - Pertinently facts in present case are distinct - Concededly in present case Respondent Corporation has already recognized right of petitioners to effect that there did prevail an anomaly in pay-scale of Head Clerks working with State Government and other Corporations Head Clerks working with Respondent Corporation - Clearly present is not case of implementation of recommendation of pay commission from a particular date but same is removal of anomaly from pay-scales of Head Clerks - Thus reliance placed on judgments by learned counsel for Respondent Corporation are misplaced - Apex Court in catena of decisions has held that observations of courts are not to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of statute - Circumstantial flexibility one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases is well settled that each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough because even a single significant detail may alter entire aspect - Judgments relied by counsel for Respondent Corporation deals with altogether a different issue and cannot be made applicable to facts of present case - Petition allowed (Para 31)

Facts of the Case:

According to the petitioner, upon introduction of the Fourth Pay Commission, the State Government in its Finance Department, framed the Gujarat Civil Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 1987 followed by framing of the Rules called Gujarat Civil Services (Revision of Pay) (Amendment) Rules, 1991 on 20th March 1991, revising the pay-scales of the employees working with the State Government. By virtue of the said Rules of 1991, the cadre of Senior Assistant/Assistant Accountant/Senior Store Keeper/Head Clerk were merged and re-designated as Head Clerk. The cadre of the Head Clerk was then placed in the pay-scale of Rs.1400 - 2600.

Finding of the Court:

Judgment cited by counsel for Respondent Corporation cannot be made applicable to present case judgments deal with issue of implementation of recommendation of pay commission from a particular date - Pertinently facts in present case are distinct - Concededly in present case Respondent Corporation has already recognized right of petitioners to effect that there did prevail an anomaly in pay-scale of Head Clerks working with State Government and other Corporations Head Clerks working with Respondent Corporation - Clearly present is not case of implementation of recommendation of pay commission from a particular date but same is removal of anomaly from pay-scales of Head Clerks - Thus reliance placed on judgments by learned counsel for Respondent Corporation are misplaced - Apex Court in catena of decisions has held that observations of courts are not to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of statute - Circumstantial flexibility one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases is well settled that each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough because even a single significant detail may alter entire aspect - Judgments relied by counsel for Respondent Corporation deals with altogether a different issue and cannot be made applicable to facts of present case.

Result: Petition allowed