IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.S. SUPEHIA, MAUNA M. BHATT, JJ.
HEMANT M. PANDYA – Appellant
Versus
BHAVNAGAR MAHANAGARPALIKA – Respondent
Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 871, 873, 875, 897, 935, 949 of 2020, Special Civil Application Nos. 11732, 11811, 11816, 12980 of 2013, Special Civil Application Nos. 15418, 15419 of 2017
Decided On : 06-08-2024
Pay - Executive Engineers - Corporation Act - Sections 40(2) - The court interpreted the provisions of the Corporation Act regarding pay scales, emphasizing the authority of the State Government in approving pay scales and the principle of equal pay for equal work, ultimately influencing the decision to reject the claim for pay revision.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, former Executive Engineers, challenged the recovery of pay scales and sought revisions dating back to 1974, claiming parity with other Nagarpalikas. The learned Single Judge partly allowed the petitions, rejecting the claim for pay revision but setting aside the recovery orders.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellants were not entitled to the same pay scales as their counterparts in other Nagarpalikas due to differing financial constraints and the authority of the State Government to approve pay scales.
Issues: Whether the appellants are entitled to a pay scale revision from 1974 and whether the recovery of excess payments was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The principle of equal pay for equal work does not apply across different Nagarpalikas governed by their own rules and financial constraints, and the State Government has the authority to approve pay scales.
Result: The appeal is partly allowed regarding the recovery order - all other appeals are dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
A.S. SUPEHIA, J.
1. The present appeals emanate from the judgment and order dated 09.06.2020 passed in the captioned writ petitions, whereby the learned Single Judge has partly allowed the petitions, except the writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 15419 of 2017, which has been rejected on the ground of delay and latches.
2. All the writ petitions, were filed by the appellants-original petitioners challenging the action of the respondents by passing the orders dated 21.11.2009, 28.02.2013 and 15.06.2013 affecting the recovery from them. The petitioners had also sought directions for grant of pay-scale of Rs.1100-1600 w.e.f. 03.10.1974 and the pay-scales of Rs.3000-4500, Rs.10500-15000 and Rs.15600-39100 revised from time to time as per the 4th Pay Commission, 5th Pay Commission and 6th Pay Commission to the petitioners. All the petitioners were serving as Executive Engineers in the respective divisions of the respondent-Corporation and they had also retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation, except the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 12414 of 2013.
3. As the prayer clause would suggest, the petitioners-appellants are claiming pay-scale right from the year 1974 and they are accordingly praying for revision of such pay-scale. The learned Single Judge, after threadbare analysis of the dispute with regard to the claim of pay-scale and the orders passed by the State Government, has rejected the writ petition so far as the claim of pay-scale is concerned however, the learned Single Judge has set aside the recovery arising out of the impugned orders.
4. Mr. D.G. Shukla, learned advocate for the appellants has submitted that the appellants, who were serving as Executive Engineers at the relevant time, are entitled to the pay-scale at par with the Executive Engineers, who were serving in the Junagadh Nagarpalika. He has referred to the order dated 12/13/05/2005 passed by the State Government regard conferring the pay-scale of Rs.10,000-15200 to Jamnagar Nagarpalika In case of Jamnagar Nagarpalika, he has submitted that by the said order the Executive Engineers were confirmed the pay-scale of Rs.10,000-15,200 however, no such order has been passed in favour of the employees of the Bhavnagar Nagarpalika.
5. Mr. Shukla, learned advocate for the appellants at the outset submitted that the learned Single Judge has not dealt the issue, on the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’. It is submitted that the appellants, who are identically situated to the Executive Engineers, Jamnagar Junagadh, and Surat Corporation, are also entitled to the same pay-scale. Learned advocate has further submitted that the respondent-Corporation in fact, had passed the resolution of conferring the aforesaid pay-scale however, the State Government has not approved and the respondent-Corporation in anticipation of such approval had granted the pay-scale however, subsequently when the State Government did not approve the pay-scale of Rs.10,000-15,200 for the post of Executive Engineers, the recovery has been sought.
6. It is submitted that the appellants are entitled to the pay- scale, as prayed by them from the year 1974, as they were serving as Executive Engineers in the respondent-Corporation and have been conferred less pay-scale. Thus, it is urged that the respondent - Nagarpalika as well as the State Government may be directed to confer the pay-scale at par with other employees of the Nagarpalika conferred to the Executive Engineers.
7. Per contra, learned AGP Ms. Shruti Dhruve has submitted that the impugned judgment and order may not be interfered with, as the same is precisely passed by the learned Single Judge. It is submitted that in fact, the appellants at the relevant time in the year 1993 did not challenge the action of the respondent-Nagarpalika when various posts were merged and one pay-scale was conferred of Rs.2500-4200 and all of them have accepted the action of the Nagarpalika in merging the various
The court established that pay scales for employees in different Nagarpalikas cannot be equated due to distinct financial and regulatory frameworks governing each entity.
The court ruled that delay in seeking pay-scale revision after retirement undermines claims, emphasizing the lack of merit in the appeals.
The court upheld the re-fixation of pay and set aside the recovery of excess payments, affirming the validity of the Government Resolution affecting pay-scales.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grant of pay scale to the writ petitioners was in accordance with the state policy, and the withdrawal of the pay scale by the appellant a....
The determination of pay scales is the exclusive domain of the state, and courts should only intervene in cases of constitutional violations.
The court established that due process must be followed in altering pay-scales, particularly regarding recovery of payments made in error, emphasizing employee rights post-retirement.
Recovery of excess payments from employees is impermissible if there is no misrepresentation or suppression of facts, especially when nearing retirement.
The court affirmed that employees of the Corporation are entitled to pay and allowances on par with State Government employees as per Rule 34, emphasizing the principle of equal pay for equal work.
The State of Himachal Pradesh is not mandated to follow pay scales set by another State; employer discretion in service conditions is reaffirmed.
Employees are entitled to a higher pay scale after 15 years of service based on government resolutions, irrespective of specific qualifications.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.