IMPORTANT POINT
Employees regularized by a Labour Court are entitled to Sixth Pay Commission benefits if the municipality's expenditure is below the specified threshold, regardless of their inclusion in the sanctioned setup.

JUDGMENT :

Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, J.

1. The petitioners herein are the employees of the Bhuj Municipality; their services having regularized by the award of the Labour Court. The petitioners herein are constrained to approach this Court in view of the decision dated 05.04.2016 passed by the respondent No.3 and have prayed for the following reliefs:

“A. Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate, writ order or direction, and to quash and set aside the decision dated 05.04.2016 passed by Respondent No.3 and further direct the respondents to grant the benefit of Sixth pay Commission to the Petitioners- employees sanctioning the same expeditiously within time frame which may be prescribed by this Hon’ble Court and further be pleased to grant interest over delayed payment of benefit of Sixth Pay Scale w.e.f. 1.1.2006 till realization of such payment.

B. Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships be pleased quash and set aside the decision no.3 and direct the Respondents to pay the salary according to the Sixth Pay Commission.

C. Any other that are necessary in the interest of justice be passed.

CC. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside resolutions dated 14.10.2022 issued by Respondent No.1; and to give benefits of the Sixth Pay Scale w.e.f. 1.01.2006 and further declare that the all the petitioners including those petitioners whose services are to be regularized by labour Court Award, are entitled for the Sixth Pay Scale w.e.f. 01.01.2006.

EE. Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present Special Civil Application, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the implementation, operation and execution of resolution dated 14.10.2022 issued by Respondent No.1.”

2. Heard Mr. Gautam Joshi, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr. Bhavin B. Thaker, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, Ms. Nidhi Vyas, learned AGP appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Mr. B.Y. Mankad, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.5.

3. Mr. Gautam Joshi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the petitioners herein are employees of the respondent No.5 – Bhuj Municipality; their services having regularized by the award of the Labour Court, which is undisputed. It is submitted that in-spite of the aforesaid, though the petitioners herein are extended the benefits of the 5th pay commission, the petitioners herein are declined the benefits of the 6th pay commission. It is submitted that the respondent No.5 has moved a proposal wherein, the expenditure of the Municipality is 61% in the year 2013 and in view thereof, the said proposal stands rejected. It is submitted that vide Resolution dated 03.09.2010, the State Government resolved that the limit of the establishment expenditure has been increased from 45% and the Municipalities whose establishment expenditure does not exceed 48%, shall grant the benefits of 6th pay commission as per the conditions mentioned in the Resolution.

3.1 Reliance is placed on the expenditure incurred by the Bhuj Municipality wherein, the said expenditure is less than 48%. It is submitted that the expenditure for the year 2016 is shown as 61% however, the expenditure of the respondent No.5 – Municipality is required to be considered in line with the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Division Bench in case of S.A. Jafai vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2011 (2) GLR 1223 wherein, the Hon’ble Division Bench in paragraph 20 has categorically held that only the expenditure incurred upon the sanctioned posts can be taken into consideration while computing the expenditure and in view thereof, it is submitted that the aforesaid calculation is erroneous. It is however, submitted that the petitioners herein are concerned with the extension of the benefits of the 6th