Judicial review does not permit courts to reassess evidence or findings in departmental inquiries unless they are perverse or based on no evidence.

JUDGMENT :

VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI, J.

1. Heard Mr. P.J. Yagnik, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners and Ms. Pooja Ashar, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State authorities.

2. The petitioners herein have challenged the impugned order passed by the Secondary Education Tribunal, Ahmedabad dated 08.10.1999 and has prayed for a direction to direct the respondents to revise the pay scale of each of the petitioners as directed by the order of the Tribunal dated 08.10.1999 and the petitioners be extended all consequential benefits, which has accrued thereupon, which are paid to the similarly situated persons working with the same department.

3.1. Briefly stated that, the petitioner no. 1 is possessing the degree of M.A. B.Ed. petitioner no. 2 is possessing the degree of B.Com. B.Ed. and petitioner no. 3 is possessing the degree of M.Com., M.Ed. All the petitioners came to be appointed in the respondent no. 3 School in the year 1982 as Higher Secondary Teachers. No adverse remarks or complaint was received by the management of respondent no. 3-New Era School against any of the petitioners. Upon completion of more than 25 years of services, petitioner no. 1 retired on 31.05.2009, petitioner no. 2 retired on 31.05.2014 and petitioner no. 3 took voluntary retirement from service on 31.05.2013.

3.2. As per the government resolution dated 18.01.1989, the higher secondary teachers were given the notional pay scale of Rs.550-900 from the date of appointment or from 01.07.1979, whichever is later and thereafter from 01.01.1986, the pay scale was required to be fixed in the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900. As the petitioners were not given the chance to opt for the date from which they wanted the new pay scale, by passage of time, there was recurring loss of one increment to each of the petitioner.

3.3. It is the case of the petitioners that, to avail their legitimate rights, they were compelled to approach the Gujarat Higher Secondary School Service Tribunal at Ahmedabad, by filing Application No. 93 of 1993, praying that because of not sanctioning the one increment, each of the petitioners are losing the effect of revised pay scale from the stipulated date. The petitioners have prayed that the petitioners are entitled for the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900, from the date of 01.09.1986 instead of 01.01.1986, while giving the effect of one increment to each of the petitioner.

3.4. The Tribunal after hearing the respective parties, by order dated 08.10.1999 held that the petitioners are entitled to the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900, w.e.f. 01.09.1986 instead of 01.01.1986 and are entitled for the benefit of one increment, as per the new date.

3.5. It is the case of the petitioners that, the respondent authorities have failed to comply with the directions issued by the Tribunal vide order dated 08.10.1999 and in view thereof, the petitioners are constrained to approach this Court for implementation of the order dated 08.10.1999 passed by the Tribunal. It is also the case of the petitioners that the petitioners had approached the respondent authorities from time to time, however, the respondents have not extended the benefits to the petitioners as directed by the Tribunal, and therefore, the petitioners are suffering loss to the tune of Rs.2000/- per month.

3.6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid action of the respondent authorities, the petitioners have approached this Court for the following reliefs:

“(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this Application.

(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to revise the pay scale of each of the petitioners as directed by the Ld. Secondary Education Tribunal, Ahmedabad dated: 8/10/1999.

(C) Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the revise pay scale to each of the petitioner with all consequential benefits accrued thereon and paid to the simi