2020 Supreme(Guj) 481

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Vikram Nath, Ashutosh J. Shastri, JJ.
Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board - Appellant
Versus
Rajesh Pravinchandra Rajyaguru - Respondent
R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 82 of 2020 In R/Special Civil Application No. 16470 of 2018 With Civil Application (For Interim Relief) No. 1 of 2019
Decided On : 24-07-2020

Point of Law:
Aspects regarding granting of pay scale of Rs.950/- was by mistake or not, the applicability of Govt. Resolution, dated 17.10.1988 and 13.10.1991 and other aspects incidental thereto should be left open to the authority for appropriate decision, but the impugned decision can not be sustained on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice as the opportunity of hearing has not been given to the concerned petitioner before withdrawing the benefit of pay-scale.

Headnote:

Employment and Service matter – Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board Act, 1978 – Section 68 – Letters Patent Appeal – Clause 15 – Termination of Service – Appeal is filed by Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board – original respondents assailing the correctness of the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application – The respondent - original petitioner was engaged as a daily rated employee with the appellant - Board and claiming to have a requisite minimum educational qualification of SSC pass from the day of his appointment – Subsequently, with effect from 30.06.1992, the respondent – original petitioner was terminated from the service which has given rise to reference before the Labour Court vand the said reference was registered as Reference Case after adjudication of said reference, learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court was pleased to pass an award on 16.03.2000 whereby a direction was issued to reinstate the respondent – Original petitioner to his post with continuity and 15% back wages – Said award was challenged by the appellant - Board unsuccessfully since Special Civil Application – Held, concept of negative equality is not recognized in the law, but at the same time, once mistake is committed, the same cannot be allowed to be perpetuated and the said view is well recognized by the decision cited before us by the learned advocate for the appellant – Board and since we are not in conflict with the observations, we deem it proper not to incorporate the observation of the said decisions just to avoid unnecessary burden of the present order and as such in close conformity with the said proposition of law laid down by the decision delivered by the Apex Court, we see that this is a fit case in which the appeal of the appellant – Board is allowed and the original petitioner’s stand is not possible to be accepted unless and until there is a specific challenge to the decision of the Board. We also do not recognize this omnibus prayer which is made in the petition. Resultantly, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is hereby quashed and set aside – Single Judge is not to be interfered with but here is the case in which the conclusion which is arrived at is in conflict with the record and the proposition which has been pointed out before us in past decisions delivered by the learned Single Judge in respect of proceedings initiated against the very appellants - Board and in one case, it has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court. So overall material on record is indicating that case is strongly made out by the appellants – Board which constrained us to grant the relief as prayed for in the appeal – Appeal is allowed and Civil Application disposed of. (Paras 19 to 22)

Facts of the case:

The respondent - original petitioner was engaged as a daily rated employee with the appellant - Board with effect from 31.12.1991 and claiming to have a requisite minimum educational qualification of SSC pass from the day of his appointment – Subsequently, with effect from 30.06.1992, the respondent – original petitioner was terminated from the service which has given rise to reference before the Labour Court, Amreli and the said reference was registered as Reference Case after adjudication of said reference, learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court was pleased to pass an award on 16.03.2000 whereby a direction was issued to reinstate the respondent – Original petitioner to his post with continuity and 15% back wages – Said award was challenged by the appellant - Board unsuccessfully since Special Civil Application.

Findings of the court:

concept of negative equality is not recognized in the law, but at the same time, once mistake is committed, the same cannot be allowed to be perpetuated and the said view is well recognized by the decision cited before us by the learned advocate for the appellant – Board and since we are not in conflict with the observations, we deem it proper not to incorporate the observation of the said decisions just to avoid unnecessary burden of the present order and as such in close conformity with the said proposition of law laid down by the decision delivered by the Apex Court, we see that this is a fit case in which the appeal of the appellant – Board is allowed and the original petitioner’s stand is not possible to be accepted unless and until there is a specific challenge to the decision of the Board. We also do not recognize this omnibus prayer which is made in the petition. Resultantly, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is hereby quashed and set aside – Single Judge is not to be interfered with but here is the case in which the conclusion which is arrived at is in conflict with the record and the proposition which has been pointed out before us in past decisions delivered by the learned Single Judge in respect of proceedings initiated against the very appellants - Board and in one case, it has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court. So overall material on record is indicating that case is strongly made out by the appellants – Board which constrained us to grant the relief as prayed for in the appeal.

Result: Appeal is allowed and Civil Application disposed of.