The court ruled that delay in seeking pay-scale revision after retirement undermines claims, emphasizing the lack of merit in the appeals.

ORDER :

(Biren Vaishnav, J.)

1. These appeals have been filed by the appellants, who were the original petitioners before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge by a common order dated 07.07.2022 dismissed the petitions of the appellants herein.

2. For the purpose of this order, facts of Letters Patent Appeal No. 116 of 2024 are discussed.

2.1 It is the case of the appellant petitioner that he was holding a qualification of Diploma in Civil Engineering. On 12.08.1975, he came to be appointed as Assistant Surveyor. With effect from 13.07.1984, he was promoted to the post of Planning Assistant. The pay-scale of the Planning Assistant was revised to that of Rs.1640-2900. It is the case of the petitioner that the State Government vide notification dated 20.03.1991 created two pay-scales, one of Rs.2000-3200 which was given to the degree holders in Civil Engineering and the other of Rs.1640- 2900 to the diploma holders in Civil Engineering. The corporation adopted the same on 18.11.1991.

2.2 It is the case of the petitioners that the State Government’s association of class-III technical employees approached this court by filing Special Civil Application No. 7950 of 1995 challenging the notification of 20.03.1991. This court by an order dated 11.06.2012 quashed the said notification. The same was confirmed in appeal before the Division Bench as well as the Apex Court. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner having retired on 30.06.2000 made several representations prior thereto in the years 2017-18 and 2018-19 requesting the Corporation that his pay-scale be revised to Rs.2000-3200.

3. Mr. Anand Gogia, learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the appellants were entitled to the pay-scale of Rs.2000-3200. He would rely on the notification of the Rajkot Municipal Corporation which defined the recruitment rules for the post of Planning Assistant. Relying on the recruitment rules dated 19.06.1992, he would submit that Planning Assistants who were promoted were entitled to the pay-scale of Rs.2000-3200. Reliance was also placed on the resolution dated 13.04.1998 passed by the Municipal Corporation adopting the pay-scales as applicable to the State Government. He would therefore submit that the valid right to the appellants accrued for fixation of their pay in the pay- scale of Rs.2000-3200 in light of the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.7950 of 1995 which was confirmed by the Division Bench in appeal and also confirmed before the Apex Court. Mr. Gogia would submit that the appellants therefore were entitled to the pay-scale of Rs.2000-3200.

4. Mr. Yogi Gadhia, learned advocate appearing for the respondent Corporation would take us through the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the Corporation and submit that if the rules of 1992 are seen, it categorically states that Planning Assistants irrespective of their qualification had the pay-scale of Rs.1640-2600 and therefore the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that they were entitled to the pay-scale of Rs.2000-3200 was misconceived. He would submit that no Planning Assistant in the Rajkot Municipal Corporation was ever given the pay-scale of Rs.2000-3200.

4.1 Inviting our attention to the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the Corporation, he would submit that the learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the petition in limine. He would submit that the petitioners have filed the petitions as an afterthought after having retired in the year 2000 and after the order passed by the Apex Court in the year 2013. He would submit that even otherwise it was categorically pointed out in paragraph no. 13 of the affidavit to indicate that it is not the case of the appellants that they were getting a pay-scale lower than that of the degree holders. Admittedly, therefore, the appellants are not entitled to any relief.

5. Having considered the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties,