The court directed the State to consider representations from petitioners regarding the treatment of Non Private Practicing Allowance (NPPA) as 'pay' for calculating allowances and benefits, following the precedent set in Letters Patent Appeal No. 77/2018.

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Mehta appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent – State.

2. Learned advocate Mr. Mehta would submit that the case of the petitioners would be covered by order dated 12.03.2018 rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No.77/2018. Learned advocate would draw the attention of this Court to observations of Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court at para- 10 and 11 of the said decision. The same are reproduced hereinbelow for benefit:-

“10. Therefore, we conclude that anomaly which was crept by applying incorrect method of calculation of total emoluments by not treating NPPA as a part of 'basic pay' was corrected under Gujarat Civil Services (Revision of Pay) Rules 2009 which came into force with effect from 01.01.2006 vide notification dated 27.02.2009 read with G.R. dated 25.06.2010 by the Finance Department Government of Gujarat upon revision of rates for Non Private Practicing Allowance based on 6th Central Pay Commission Clause (4) once again treats Non Private Practicing Allowance as pay for the purpose of computing Dearness Allowance, entitlement of Travelling Allowance and other allowances as well as for calculation of retirement benefits. Thus G.R. dated 20.01.1998 explaining the term ‘pay’ for the purpose of Dearness Allowance to include Non Private Practicing Allowance remained in force or rather reiterated in G.R. dated 25.06.2010 by the Finance Department of Government of Gujarat. That such was not the case only for the interregnum period or year 2005 to 2009 based on powers of the State Government to accept the recommendations of 5th Pay Commission in toto and to rely on Part B of Rule 7 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Revision of Pay) Rules 1998 in which NPA did not form or was rather not included in the definition of either basic pay or existing emoluments. Further revised emoluments do accept Non Private Practicing Allowance in 1998 and 2009 Revision of Pay Rules.

11. Therefore, we find the order and directions of the learned Single Judge impugned in this group of appeals are based on proper analysis of relevant Revision of Pay Rules, Government Resolutions, Office Memorandums governing the subject of NPA/NPPA to which we are in agreement with and NPA/NPPA is not to be divested of the term 'Pay' for the purpose of computing dearness allowance and emoluments. We find no merit in all these appeals and they are hereby dismissed.”

3. Learned advocate would submit that since the petitioners are identically situated to the employees in the said group of appeals, therefore, learned advocate would submit that the petitioners may be permitted to make a representation to the respondents and whereas, the respondents may be directed to consider the case of the petitioners in light of the observations of the Hon’ble Division Bench.

4. Considering such a position, the following directions, to this Court, would meet with the ends of justice:-

(i) The petitioners are permitted to prefer a representation more particularly pointing out that the petitioners would be similarly situated to the employees before the Hon’ble Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.77/2018 and whereas, they would be entitled to the benefits as per the observations of the Hon’ble Division Bench reproduced hereinabove.

(ii) The petitioners shall tender their representations to the respondent authorities by 30.04.2026 and whereas, the respondent authority shall take an appropriate decision thereupon within a period of ninety (90) days thereafter.

(iii) It is clarified that the representation shall be addressed to the respective parent department with a copy to the Secretary, Finance Departmen