The main legal point established in the judgment is the acknowledgment of the pay-scale anomaly by the State Government and the court's direction to rectify the disparity by treating the post of Junior Metrology Inspector at par with the Additional Assistant Engineer, Class-III.

JUDGMENT :

1. This petition under Article-226 of the Constitution of India is filed with following prayers :

“(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may pleased to direct the respondents to revise the Scale for the Post of Junior Inspector (working and retired) of Legal Metrology from Rs. 1400/2300 to 1640/2900 w.e.f 1.1.86, and make subsequent revisions in subsequent Revision of Pay Bills of Government of Gujarat; and further direct the Respondents to fix the salary of the petitioner in the Scale of 1640/2900 with effect 1.1.86 of all the Junior Inspector (working and retired) of Metrology working under Respondent No.1 and further direct the respondents to pay the difference and arrears of the salary in the Scale of Rs.1640/2900 with effect 1.1.86, with all subsequent revisions, to all Junior Inspector of Legal Metrology working under (working under) Respondent No.1 by way of writ of Mandamus or writ of Certiorari or any other writ, order or direction as the Hon’ble Court deems just and proper;

(B) The pay scales of Senior Inspectors (working and retired) of Legal Metrology Department, Govt of Gujarat be also similarly revised from 1640/2900 to 2000/3200 w.e.f. 1.1.86, will all consequential revisions in Pay scales, as prayed for above since Junior Inspectors are feeder cadre of Senior Inspectors.”

2. Essentially, the grievance of the petitioners is anomaly, which has crept in, in their pay structure.

3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners initially, as per the report of the Pay Commission, were at par with the Additional Assistant Engineers. However, in the midway, the pay-scale of the Additional Assistant Engineer was hiked and whereas, the petitioner’s post continued on the same pay-scale. It is submitted that educational qualification prescribed for the post of Legal Metrology Inspectors to which the members of the petitioner are appointed, was much higher than that of the Additional Assistant Engineer. The work experience was also higher and as this hike in their pay-scale of the Additional Assistant Engineer came to the knowledge of the petitioners, the petitioner-Association made representation, which was not answered and hence, the petition came to be filed.

4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to Special Civil Application No.9504 of 1996, which was filed for the purpose and pending that case of the petitioner, was referred to the Anomaly Committee to consider the anomaly which had crept in the pay-scale between the Additional Assistant Engineer and Legal Metrology Inspector. It is submitted that as the petition was pending before this Court, the Anomaly Committee was unable to decide and hence, the petitioner withdrew the earlier petition, which was disposed of by order dated 01-02-1999, leaving it open for the Anomaly Committee to independently take the decision. It is submitted that Anomaly Committee did consider the case of the petitioner, however, compared the same with three other posts, viz. Mamlatdar, Police Sub Inspector and Sales Tax Inspector. However, Anomaly Committee failed to compare the case of the petitioner with the Additional Assistant Engineer, with whom the petitioners were claiming parity.

5. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that in any case, though recommendation of the Anomaly Committee was to maintain such disparity, but the State Government, in its decision, has not accepted the recommendation of the Anomaly Committee, thereby indirectly, the State has acknowledged disparity in the pay-scale of the Legal Metrology Inspector and Additional Assistant Engineer, despite the educational qualification and work experience of the petitioners being higher and at one stage, both were at par in so far as pay-scale is concerned.

6. As against this, learned AGP has opposed to the grant of petition by submitting that the educational qualification may not be the criteria for comparing the pay-scale, more particularly when the claim of the petitioners was o