Back
2025 Supreme(GUJ) 711
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 584 of 2024 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 389 of 2016 =============================================
JASVANT HARIBHAI DAVE Versus STATE OF GUJARAT =============================================
Appearance:
MR SAMIR B GOHIL(5718) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MS NIRALI SARDA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 =============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA and HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE Date : 19/03/2025
Adverse remarks in Confidential Reports within the last five years disqualify an employee from receiving a Higher Pay Scale, as clarified by the Finance Department.
Headnote:(A) Government Resolution dated 02.07.2007 - Clause 12 - Higher Pay Scale - Appellant claimed entitlement to 2nd Higher Pay Scale from 12.02.2011, which was denied due to adverse remarks in Confidential Reports for 273 days - The Departmental Promotion Committee's recommendation to ignore these days was found erroneous - The Finance Department clarified that adverse remarks within the last five years must be considered. (Paras 4, 8, 12, 13)
(B) Employment Law - The criteria for granting higher pay scales require a review of the last five years of Confidential Reports, and any adverse remarks disqualify an employee from receiving such benefits. (Paras 10, 12)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, an Instructor since 1984, was denied the 2nd Higher Pay Scale due to negative remarks in his Confidential Report for the period from 01.06.2008 to 31.03.2009, despite a recommendation from the DPC to grant the scale. (Paras 4, 10)
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the denial of the 2nd Higher Pay Scale, affirming that the adverse remarks in the Confidential Report were valid grounds for disqualification. (Paras 13, 14)
Issues: The main issues were whether the adverse remarks could be ignored for the purpose of granting the Higher Pay Scale and the interpretation of Clause 12 of the Government Resolution. (Paras 5, 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the adverse remarks in the Confidential Report must be considered when determining eligibility for the Higher Pay Scale, and the DPC erred in its recommendation. (Paras 12, 14)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
ORDER :
(A.S. SUPEHIA, J.)
1. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has tendered an affidavit dated 18.03.2025, which has been filed in view of the direction issued by this Court vide order dated 24.09.2024. The same is ordered to be taken on record.
2. With consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is finally taken up for hearing and decided by this order today.
3. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the present appellant claiming the benefits of the 2nd Higher Pay-Scale with effect from 12.02.2011.
4. The facts, as recorded by the learned Single Judge, are not in dispute. The same are as under : -
“2.1 The Petitioner was appointed as Instructor (Electroplating) by the respondent vide order dated 13/01/1984. The respondent had made negative remarks in Confidential Report dated 19/05/2009 against the petitioner for the period from 01/06/2008 to 31/03/2009 and the petitioner was informed to give reply of such report in six weeks. Accordingly, petitioner has submitted reply dated 14/07/2009 to Respondent stating that he has followed all instructions of the office and completed all training satisfactorily.
2.2 It is the case of the petitioner that he had worked in the institution from 01/01/1980 till date of retirement on 31/03/2011, but none of the superior officers has given adverse remarks against petitioner. However, vide letter/order dated 27/10/2009, the respondent has informed the petitioner that his reply has not been considered. The petitioner has not challenged the respondent's letter dated 27/10/2009 in this petition. But it is pertinent to note here that after adding 273 days, (so-called negative report during period from 01/06/2008 to 31/03/2009) in the eligibility date i.e. 16/05/2010 for second higher pay scale, then even, the petitioner has not been granted second higher pay scale from 12/02/2011. It is further the case of the petitioner that the respondent vide resolution dated 03/10/2009 merged the post of Rector- cum-Superintendent and Instructor. The respondent has treated Rector-cum-Superintendent as one post vide resolution dated 03/10/2009. Thereafter, after number of representations made by the present petitioner, meeting of superior officer was held on 04/12/2010 at the head office of the respondent for granting higher pay scale to petitioner and other employees wherein final decision was taken. It was decided by the respondent that the petitioner is eligible for the higher pay scale from 12/02/2011 by adding another 273 days (bad entry in personal report of petitioner: 01/06/2008 to 31/03/2009) in original eligible date 16/05/2010. However, the respondent had not granted higher pay scale without taking into consideration the decision taken in the meeting dated 04/12/2010.”
5. Learned advocate Mr.Samir B. Gohil, appearing for the appellant has submitted that the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge is required to be quashed and set aside since the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the provisions of paragraph No.12 of the Government Resolution dated 02.07.2007 in its true perspective. It is further submitted that as per Clause 12(a) of the said Resolution the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the Higher Pay Scale after he completes requisite number of years and the Departmental Promotion Committee (the DPC), while considering the case of the appellant for grant of 2nd Higher Scale has excluded the period of 273 days, for which, the appellant was conveyed the adverse remark in his Confidential Report. It is submitted that thus, the appellant is entitled for the Higher Pay Scale ignoring those 273 days of the adverse remarks in the Confidential Report. He has submitted that in case, those 273 days are adjusted, the appellant would be entitled for the Higher Pay Scale with effect from 12.02.2
