The court affirmed that employees are entitled to higher pay scales and promotions as per applicable Government Resolutions and Recruitment Rules, despite delays by the State.

JUDGMENT :

Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, J.

1. Heard Mr. G. M. Joshi, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Vyom H. Shah, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Pooja Ashar, the learned AGP appearing for the respondent – State.

2. The petitioner herein is a Association of Work Assistants, employed under the respondent State in its Roads and Buildings Department. It is the case of the petitioner that originally, the respondent - State was having Public Works Department, which was subsequently divided into two departments namely Building and Construction Department and Roads and Buildings Department. Again, both the departments were merged and it was named as Roads and Buildings Department.

3. The members of the petitioner Association were originally employed on various posts namely, Karkoon, mistry, technical assistant as well as sub-overseer, by a policy decision, which is reflected in Government Resolution dated 07.01.1984, a cadre of Work Assistant was created merging the cadre of Karkoon, mistry, technical assistant, sub-0verseer and like other posts, which were carrying different pay scales and different recruitment rules. By the said decision, all the cadres were merged in one cadre namely Work Assistant. The said decision also provided that the recruitment rules for the post of Additional Assistant Engineer as well as Sub-Overseer would be appropriately amended providing for promotion from the post of Work Assistant.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that the State Government did take a decision in the year 1984 to merge the cadre of Karkoon, mistry, technical assistant, sub-overseer and like other posts into that of Work Assistant and it also prescribed recruitment rules in the year 1985 which are duly produced at Annexure-B to the petition.

5. Directions were issued to issue appointment orders to Karkoons and mistry on the post of work assistant, still, surprisingly no pay scale was prescribed for the post of Work Assistant in any of the revision of the Pay Rules notified from time to time. The ROP, showing the pay scale of Karkoon and mistry are duly produced at Annexure-C to the petition. The petitioners are paid salary and allowances in the pay scale of Rs.1200-1800, which was payable to the post of sub-overseer that was revised to Rs.4000-6000 in the ROP Rules, 1998 to that of Rs.5200-20200 with grade pay of Rs.2400/- in ROP Rules, 2009.

6. The Government passed fresh Resolution on 09.07.1987 issuing clarificatory policy decision absorbing the concerned Karkoon/mistry in the pay scale of Rs.1200-1800 as work assistant. Accordingly, all the Karkoon/mistry, who were satisfying the condition prescribed in the resolution were given appointment as work assistant. A further clarification was issued on 28.07.1987 including the “work charge” employees in the scope of the said resolution which is duly produced at Annexure-D to the petition.

7. On 04.08.1990, a circular was issued to all the departments to give promotion to all the Karkoon and mistry as work assistant in spite of the fact that these were the cadres that were merged into the all concerned not only took the training but passed the examination also. The said circular dated 04.08.1990 is duly produced Annexure-E to the petition.

8. It is the case of the petitioner that on coming into force of ROP Rules, 1998 the members who were given the pay scale of Rs.1200-1800 were entitled to get corresponding scale Rs.4000-6000 that was given to them after some persuasion, however, by different orders the pay scale was reduced to Rs. 3050-4590 and recovery was also made from all the employees.

Not only that the benefit of corresponding scale i.e. Rs.5200- 20200/- was also taken back by effecting recovery of the amounts paid to them. One such order is also produced at Annexure-G to the petition.

9. It is the case of the petitioner that accordingly all the Karkoon and mistry, who were satisfying the conditions of the rules as well as the resolutions namely rendering 1