Back
2024 Supreme(Guj) 1141
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Hemant M. Prachchhak, J.
Jasvant Haribhai Dave – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 389 of 2016
Decided On : 16-02-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: HCLS Committee, Mr.Hardik B Shah
For the Respondent: Ms Nirali Sarda, Asst. Government Pleader
IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an employee's entitlement to a higher pay scale is determined by the relevant government resolution and eligibility criteria, taking into account adverse remarks in the service record. Retirement before meeting the eligibility criteria can impact the entitlement to the higher pay scale.
Headnote:
Mandamus - Pay Scale Dispute - Government Resolution dated 02/07/2007 - [1987] 2 SCC 602 - The court discussed the petitioner's eligibility for the second higher pay scale, considering the adverse remarks in the service record and the relevant government resolution. The court found that the petitioner had retired before becoming eligible for the second higher pay scale and dismissed the petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to receive the difference in pay scale and terminal benefits, claiming entitlement to the second higher pay scale. The petitioner had adverse remarks in the service record for the period from 01/06/2008 to 31/03/2009, which affected the eligibility for the higher pay scale. The respondent did not grant the higher pay scale, citing the adverse remarks and the petitioner's retirement on 31/03/2011.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had retired before becoming eligible for the second higher pay scale as per the Government Resolution dated 02/07/2007. The court noted that the adverse remarks were communicated to the petitioner, who challenged them through a departmental appeal, but the adverse remarks remained unchanged. The court concluded that the petition lacked merit and dismissed it.
Issues: The key issue was the petitioner's entitlement to the second higher pay scale, considering the adverse remarks in the service record and the Government Resolution dated 02/07/2007. The court also considered the petitioner's retirement before becoming eligible for the higher pay scale.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the fact that the petitioner had retired before meeting the eligibility criteria for the second higher pay scale as per the relevant government resolution. The court also emphasized that the adverse remarks were communicated to the petitioner, who had the opportunity to challenge them through a departmental appeal.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, ruling that the petitioner was not entitled to the second higher pay scale due to retirement before meeting the eligibility criteria. The court discharged the rule and made no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT :
1. By way of present petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :
“(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction and be pleased to pass an order or direction on Respondent to pay difference of second higher pay scale and give all terminal benefits to petitioner from date : 12/02/2011 till the date of realization.
(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction and be pleased to pass an order or direction on Respondent to pay petitioner pension considering second higher pay scale from date : 12/02/2011 during the pendency of this petition.
(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to grant such other and further relief as are deemed fit and proper by this Hon’ble Court, in the interest of justice.”
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petitioner are as under :
2.1 The Petitioner was appointed as Instructor (Electroplating) by the respondent vide order dated 13/01/1984. The respondent had made negative remarks in Confidential Report dated 19/05/2009 against the petitioner for the period from 01/06/2008 to 31/03/2009 and the petitioner was informed to give reply of such report in six weeks. Accordingly, petitioner has submitted reply dated 14/07/2009 to Respondent stating that he has followed all instructions of the office and completed all training satisfactorily.
2.2 It is the case of the petitioner that he had worked in the institution from 01/01/1980 till date of retirement on 31/03/2011, but none of the superior officers has given adverse remarks against petitioner. However, vide letter/order dated 27/10/2009, the respondent has informed the petitioner that his reply has not been considered. The petitioner has not challenged the respondent's letter dated 27/10/2009 in this petition. But it is pertinent to note here that after adding 273 days, (so-called negative report during period from 01/06/2008 to 31/03/2009) in the eligibility date i.e. 16/05/2010 for second higher pay scale, then even, the petitioner has not been granted second higher pay scale from 12/02/2011. It is further the case of the petitioner that the respondent vide resolution dated 03/10/2009 merged the post of Rector-cum- Superintendent and Instructor. The respondent has treated Rector-cum-Superintendent as one post vide resolution dated 03/10/2009. Thereafter, after number of representations made by the present petitioner, meeting of superior officer was held on 04/12/2010 at the head office of the respondent for granting higher pay scale to petitioner and other employees wherein final decision was taken. It was decided by the respondent that the petitioner is eligible for the higher pay scale from 12/02/2011 by adding another 273 days (bad entry in personal report of petitioner: 01/06/2008 to 31/03/2009) in original eligible date 16/05/2010. However, the respondent had not granted higher pay scale without taking into consideration the decision taken in the meeting dated 04/12/2010.
2.3 It is further the case of the petitioner that petitioner had not received any positive reply from the respondent. The petitioner retired on 31/03/2011. Hence, the petitioner has approached to Permanent Lok Adalat in the High Court of Gujarat and the notice was issued to respondent, pursuant to which, the respondent appeared and repeated the same contention. Hence, Permanent Lok Aalat could not settle the dispute and hence, in the above circumstances, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by way of this petition under Articles 14, 16, 21, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned decision.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr.Hardik Shah, appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Nirali Sarda, appearing on behalf of the respondent – State.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Hardik Shah for the petitioner has submitted th
