The court directed the State to rectify pay scale anomalies for the petitioner, acknowledging historical discrepancies and allowing claims for the period from 01.01.1973 to 31.12.1985 with interest.

JUDGMENT :

VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI, J.

1. Heard Mr. F.B. Brahmbhatt, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Pooja Ashar, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are as follows:

2.1. The petitioner herein came to be appointed as an Analytical Chemist, Class-II on 01.03.1962 and was promoted as Analytical Chemist, Class-I in the office of the Director (now Commissioner) of Geology and Mining and has retired on 31.05.1989.

2.2. It is the case of the petitioner herein that the petitioner was serving as Chemist in the office of the Director of Geology and Mining-respondent no. 3 herein and the said post of Director has been upgraded to the post of Commissioner. The name of office is Commissioner of Geology and Mining. The function of the department is geological mapping and exploration, administration and conservation of mineral wealth of the State and the aforesaid work is being done through it’s three wings, viz. (I) Geology, (II) Mining and (III) Laboratory. The duties of the Geologists in the petro logical and mineralogical laboratory consists of study of physical properties of rocks, mineral and ores. Similarly, the function of Chemist is in the same laboratory is consisting of chemical analyses of rocks, mineral and ores. Thus, the work of Geologist and Chemist is complementary to each other and not separate. Therefore, from the inception of the office, the pay scales of Geologists and Chemist were kept equal and both of them were working in the same pay scale of Rs. 370-1100 prior to Sarela Pay commission and the Sarela Pay Revision Commission had also recommended the equal pay scale of Rs. 500-1250 for both the posts of Geologist and Chemist.

2.3. It is the case of the petitioner that, thereafter, Gujarat State Second Pay Commission under the chairmanship of Justice D.A. Desai, created anomaly, who recommended the pay scale of Geologists of Rs. 1100-1600 and kept aside the Post of Chemist/petitioner without proper justification. Upon recommendation of Desai Pay Commission, a government resolution came to be issued on 24.10.1978 for revision of certain posts, in which the pay scale of Geologist was revised as 1100-1600, with retrospective effect of 01.01.1973, leaving aside the post of Chemist/petitioner, which is till that date is equal to the post of Geologist. It is further the case of the petitioner that, as such from 01.01.1973, the Geologists were came in the scale of 1100- 1600, while the Chemist who was drawing the equal pay, was continued in the old pay scale of 700-1500. Due to the aforesaid anomaly, the same resulted in monitory loss to the petitioner herein from 01.01.173 as compared to Geologists, copy of the government resolution dated 24.10.1978 is produced at Annexure-A.

2.4. In the meanwhile, the report of third pay commission under the chairmanship of Justice A.M. Ahmadi came to be issued in August, 1985, in which the pay scale of Geologists and Chemist were equated by recommending Rs. 1570-3110 for both the posts of Geologists and Chemist. The commission explained in detail, how the post of Geologist as well as the Chemist were equal, the said report is duly produced at Annexure-C.

2.5. Thereafter, the posts of Chemists were upgraded vide government resolution dated 21.06.1999 and the petitioner was allowed the equal pay scale of Rs. 2200-4200, which was further upgraded to Rs. 3000-4500 for both the categories. Hence, thereafter, both the posts of Geologists and 50% posts of Chemists were brought in the equal pay scale from 01.01.1986 and therefore, the petitioner was granted the equal pay scale of Rs. 3000-4500 alongwith the Geologists from 01.01.1986, but no consideration was made for the period from 01.01.1973 to 31.12.1985, which resulted in financial loss to the petitioner herein. The petitioner continuously made representation to his department as well as the finance department to remove the anomaly for