Point of Law: , unlike an appeal, in general, an intra- Court appeal is an appeal on principle and that is why, unlike an appeal, in an ordinary sense, such as a criminal appeal, where the whole evidence on record is examined afresh by the appellate Court, what is really examined, in an intra-Court appeal, is the legality and validity of the Judgment and/or Order of the Single Judge and it can be set aside or should be set aside only when there is a patent error on the face of the record or the judgment is against the established or settled principle of law.

JUDGMENT :

J.B. PARDIWALA, J.

1. This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is at the instance of the Umreth Municipality (original respondent No.4) in the writ application being Special Civil Application No.10918 of 2015 filed by the respondents Nos. 1 to 17 herein (original writ applicants) and is directed against the judgment and order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 19.09.2017 in the above referred writ application, by which, the writ application came to be allowed with exemplary cost of Rs.25,000/- to be paid by the respondents jointly and severally.

2. The facts, giving rise to this appeal, may be summarized as under;

2.1 The original writ applicants were all employees of the Umreth Municipality. They came before this High Court by filing the Special Civil Application No.10918 of 2015, praying for the following reliefs;

“(A) Issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing to the respondents authority to decide the proposal and grant the 6th Pay commission to the present petitioners with 8% interest at par with other municipalities of the state i.e, from 01.01.2010 in the interest of justice;

(B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition direct the respondents authority to decide the proposal and grant the 6th Pay Commission within stipulated time at par with other municipalities of the state i.e., from 01.01.2010 in the interest of justice;

(C) Any other appropriate relief grantable by this Hon’ble Court may kindly be granted in the interest of justice.”

2.2 The learned Single Judge took notice of the following facts;

(a) The writ applicants were the regular employees of the Umreth Municipality and were getting the benefits of the 5th Pay Commission;

(b) Originally there were seventeen writ applicants, and all of those, except two have retired by the year 2013;

(c) As all other municipalities in the State of Gujarat granted the benefits of the 6th Pay Commission to their respective employees, the writ applicants serving with the Umreth Municipality also put forward their claim for the benefit of the 6th Pay Commission. In the first round of litigation, they preferred the Special Civil Application No.14622 of 2012 which came to be disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 26.04.2013 whereby a statement was made by the learned counsel appearing for the Municipality that the decision would be taken within a period of one month regarding the benefits to be extended to the writ applicants;

(d) As the municipality resiled from its statement made before this Court, referred to above, the writ applicants had to come back once again by filing the Special Civil Application No.10918 of 2015, seeking appropriate directions for the grant of benefits of the 6th Pay Commission with 8% interest, i.e., at par with the other municipalities of the State w.e.f. from 01.01.2010.

(e) The learned Single Judge took notice of the fact that during the pendency of the Special Civil Application No.10918 of 2015, the Director of Municipalities passed an order dated 04.08.2015 which was otherwise required to be passed within one month of the previous petition, i.e., the Special Civil Application No.14622 of 2012 and further the benefits were granted to the writ applicants only with effect from 01.08.2015 and the period between 01.01.2006 and 31.07.2015 was treated as notional.

(f) In the aforesaid facts, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ application, holding as under;

“11. Originally, petitioners have approached this Court for grant of benefits of 6th Pay Commission and to be considered at par with the other Municipalities of the State who have been granted such benefits from 1.1.2010. Action and inaction of the Director of Municipalities has been justified by the State while referring to Resolution of the State Government dated 3.9.2010 according to which, such benefits can be given to the Municipalities whose establishment expe