IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6907 of 2021 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV ==========================================================

1	Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2	To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3	Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4	Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ?

==========================================================

RAJUL P BHATT Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR KETAN A DAVE(255) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR. KURVEN DESAI, AGP, for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV Date : 04/04/2022

ORAL JUDGMENT

1 By an order dated 02.03.2022, the grievances raised by the petitioner were set out. The order dated 02.03.2022 reads as under:

“1 Three fold grievances have been raised by the petitioner in the present petition.

2 Firstly, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 01.04.2021 by which, the benefits of the 6^th Pay Commission with

NEUTRAL CITATION

undefined

on the ground that the petitioner was not eligible to the same. 3 Mr.Ketan Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner’s initial appointment on ad-hoc basis was in a pay scale, there was no break in service inasmuch as, on being appointed on an ad-hoc Lecturer she continued to served on ad-hoc basis from 12.04.1993 to 10.05.2009 without a break. She joined the Degree College on 11.05.2009. In the order of recovery, reliance is placed on the communications dated 19.03.2015 (page

80) and 18.07.2020 (page 81).

4 This Court by an order dated 23.04.2021 has granted ad- interim relief against the recovery. Mr.Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that in addition to the petitioner being entitled to the pay-scale on merits, the order of recovery was made 12 years after the fixation was approved by the Examiner of Local Funds as is evident from (pg.32) dated 27.5.2011. The pay scale was verified as is evident from Annexure-’E’ (pg32).

5 The second grievance of the petitioner is that she is entitled to the AGP of Rs.7,000/- with effect from 11.5.2014 and an order has been issued on 3.6.2019, but the same is not being implemented. The third grievance is of treating the period of past service as an ad-hoc Lecturer from 12.4.1993 to 10.5.2009 as continuous for all purposes, since the petitioner has been regularized without any brake in service from 11.5.2009. He would rely on an interim order dated 27.10.2021 passed in Special Civil Application No. 6312 of 2021 and allied matters.

6 Prima facie, as far as recovery is concerned, irrespective of whether the petitioner was entitled to the scale on merits, it is sought to be recovered after 12 years. The mistake cannot be corrected after more than three years as by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. BPL Mobile Cellular Ltd reported in 2008 (13) SCC 597. Moreover, even as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih(white whasher)., reported in 2015 (4) SCC 334., the recovery cannot be made.

As far as the implementation of the order dated 03.06.2019 granting the AGP of Rs.7,000/- and the benefits of continuity of service for the past period from 12.4.1993 to 10.5.2009 is concerned, the State shall take appropriate stand and file a reply on, or before, 16.03.2021.

Stand over to 17.03.2021.”

NEUTRAL CITATION

undefined

2.1 The petitioner possesses educational qualification of M.E (Chemical Engineering). She is serving as an Assistant Professor in Chemical Engineering at L.D.College of Engineering, Ahmedabad, on permanent basis.

2.2 The petitioner was ini

Click Here to Read the rest of this document