Point of Law: Appointment of the petitioner was not regularized, she is not entitled to any benefit of regularly appointed employee including the revision of pay scales.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Nigam Soni for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Jayneel Parikh for the respondent No.1 and 2 And learned advocate Mr.Amar Mithani for the respondent No.3 through video conference.

1. Rule, returnable forthwith.

2. As the controversy raised in this petition is in narrow compass, with the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties the matter is taken up for hearing.

3. The brief facts of the case are as under :

3.1. The petitioner is a senior citizen and retired Teacher from the Bal Mandir run by the respondent No.3-Municipality worked continuously from 1992 to 2015. It is the case of the petitioner that the appointment of the petitioner was made on the vacant post of Teacher in Balmandir which was sanctioned but petitioner was denied the benefit of regular pay scale and equality of pay.

3.2. It is further the case of the petitioner that as the post of the Teacher was sanctioned and available for looking after education of children, the respondent No.3-Municipality called for application and selected the petitioner and given her appointment in the year 1992 in the pay scale of Rs.50-3-80 which was fixed in the year 1966 and revised from time to time.

3.3. The petitioner was initially appointed for a period of six months in the pay scale of Rs.1200-1800 with monthly salary of Rs.1200 vide order dated 24.11.1992 on ad-hoc basis which was renewed from time to time up to the 31.12.1996 and thereafter the petitioner was continued as a Teacher of Bal Mandir run by the respondent No.3-Municipality.

3.4. It is not in dispute that the pay scale of the petitioner was revised from time to time and she was getting the pay scale as per the forth pay commission which is equivalent to Rs.11,372/- in the pay scale of Rs.1200-1800. The petitioner retired in the year 2015 on attaining the age of superannuation and the last pay drawn by the petitioner was in the scale of Rs.1200-total Rs.11,372/- while the Teachers who were serving with the petitioner were granted salary of Rs.25,000/- in grade pay of Rs.1800. Prior to that the petitioner made several representations to regularize her service and to grant benefit as per the fifth and sixth pay commission extended by the respondent No.3-Municipality to the similarly situated employees with effect from 5th April, 2011 and 27th February, 2013 respectively. The petitioner thereafter issued a legal notice dated 18.12.2015 demanding equality of pay and difference of salary as per fifth and sixth pay commissions recommendations and to grant terminal dues accordingly.

3.5. The respondent No.3-Municipality by reply dated 6th January, 2016 informed the petitioner that she was appointed as temporary employee and she was not employed as per the set up and therefore, the benefits of fifth and sixth pay commission recommendations could not be granted to her. The respondent No.3-Municipality relied upon the order dated 25.04.2011 issued by the Office of the Regional Director of Municipalities granting benefit of fifth pay scale to the employees of the respondent No.3-Municipality. It was stated by the respondent No.3- Municipality that as per condition Nos.1 and 3 of the said order dated 25.04.2011, the benefit of fifth pay commission can be granted only to the employees who are in permanent set up and are regularly employed by the respondent No.3-Municipality.

4.1. Learned advocate Mr.Soni submitted that the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of revision of pay scale as per the fifth and sixth pay commission recommendations as the respondent No.3-Municipality has discriminated the petitioner from giving the benefits vis-a-vis the other similarly situated employees and therefore, there is violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It was submitted that when the petitioner made representation in the year 2013, she was informed that the case would be considered when the matter is placed before the General Body of the Mu