An employee is entitled to a second higher pay-scale after 15 years of service if they remain stagnated in the same pay-scale despite receiving promotions.

JUDGMENT :

(A.S. Supehia, J.)

1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 01.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by appellant-original petitioner. The petitioner has prayed for directions against the respondent authorities to grant higher pay-scale of Rs.8,000-14,050/- from his due date with all consequential benefits including arrears.

2. The petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2004 retired as a Deputy Manager Class II. When it came to the knowledge of the appellant-original-petitioner that his Junior was granted higher pay-scale of Rs.8,000-14,050/- w.e.f on 18.02.2005 vide order dated 11.06.2009, he made a representation on 10.12.2009 to grant the same to him also. It is asserted by the appellant that a proposal was sent by the Director of Accounts-Respondent No.2 on 12.03.2010 to the Finance Department to grant higher pay-scale with effect from 17.02.2002 in view of completion of 15 years of service, after receipt of higher pay-scale. However, he does not have the copy of such proposal.

3. Since nothing was done, ultimately, the appellant-petitioner filed the writ petition being Special Civil Application No.18708 of 2014, which was disposed of as withdrawn vide order dated 22.01.2015, since a direction was issued by the Court to the State authority to take a decision within a period of two months.

4. Vide order dated 04.04.2015, the Respondent No.1 rejected the claim of the appellant of higher pay scale on the ground that he has received three promotions and one higher pay scale, which has been assailed by him in the captioned writ petition. It appears that thereafter, another order was passed on 14.03.2016 by the Finance Department negligibly modifying the order dated 04.04.2015, which is also challenged in the captioned writ petition. The learned Single Judge has found favour on the stand taken by the State Government to the effect that receipt of three promotions and one higher payscale, will disentitle the appellant from second higher payscale.

5. Learned Advocate for the appellant Ms. Harshal N. Pandya, at the outset, has submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Division Bench dated 09.09.2020 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.504 of 2020. It is submitted that in similar facts, where the employee who had also received three promotions and first higher pay-scale, the learned Single Judge by the order dated 16.01.2020 passed in Special Civil Application No.10318 of 2018 has held that even if the employees who have received three promotions and one higher pay-scale, they would be entitled to second higher payscale in view of the Resolution dated 02.07.2007, more particularly Paragraph No.2(4)(b). It is submitted that the same has been confirmed by the Division Bench vide 09.09.2020 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.504 of 2020.

6. Learned Advocate Ms. Harshal N. Pandya has submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated the fact that actually after the appellant was granted the first higher pay-scale with effect from 17.08.1997 of Rs.2,000- 3,500/-, he was promoted on the post of Accounts Officer Class-II on 14.09.1994, however, his pay-scale never changed and hence, he would be entitled to second higher pay-scale, after completion of 15 years from the date of the second promotion dated 17.08.1978 similar to that of his junior. It is submitted that this is a vital aspect, which has not been considered by the learned Single Judge and hence, the appeal may be allowed by setting aside the decision of the respondent authorities as well as the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

7. Per contra, learned AGP Mr. Sahil Trivedi has submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not require interference. It is submitted that the case of junior, on which reliance is placed i.e. Shri. I.H. Bandhara, is not similar to that of the appellant as the service details shows