Gujarat High Court
Kantibhai Nathurambhai Raval vs Director Of Animal Husbandary & 3 on 3 August, 2016
Author: J.B.Pardiwala
Bench: J.B.Pardiwala
C/SCA/8924/1999 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8924 of 1999
[On note for speaking to minutes of order dated 14/07/2016 in
C/SCA/8924/1999 ]
==========================================================
KANTIBHAI NATHURAMBHAI RAVAL....Petitioner(s)
Versus
DIRECTOR OF ANIMAL HUSBANDARY & 3....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HB SINGH, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 4
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 03/08/2016
ORAL ORDER
By this Note for Speaking to Minutes, it has been pointed out that there is an error in para 3.4 of the judgment dated 14th July 2016 as regards the date of the Government Resolution dated 6th August 1994. The correct date is 16th August 1994. In para 6, there is an error as regards the date of the impugned order. In para 6, the date mentioned is 15th December 1992. The correct date is 15th December 1994.
The Registry shall effect the necessary correction in the main judgment and issue a fresh writ of the order.
With the above, the Note is disposed of.
(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.) Page 1 of 2 HC-NIC Page 1 of 14 Created On Sat Aug 06 03:11:06 IST 2016 1 of 14 C/SCA/8924/1999 ORDER chandresh Page 2 of 2 HC-NIC Page 2 of 14 Created On Sat Aug 06 03:11:06 IST 2016 2 of 14 C/SCA/8924/1999 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8924 of 1999 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3312 of 2010 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA ========================================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? NO 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
NO
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of
the judgment ? NO
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of
law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of NO India or any order made thereunder ?
========================================================== KANTIBHAI NATHURAMBHAI RAVAL....Petitioner(s) Versus DIRECTOR OF ANIMAL HUSBANDARY & 3....Respondent(s) ========================================================== Appearance:
MR HB SINGH, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR KRUTIK PARIKH, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 4 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA Date : 14/07/2016 ORAL COMMON JUDGMENT Page 1 of 12 HC-NIC Page 3 of 14 Created On Sat Aug 06 03:11:06 IST 2016
3 of 14 C/SCA/8924/1999 JUDGMENT 1 Since the issues raised in both the captioned writ applications are interlinked, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
2 The petitioner, a retired government servant, has prayed for the following reliefs:
3 The facts of this case may be summarized as under:
3.1 The petitioner was appointed on the post of 'Live Stock Inspector' on 10th June 1964. He last served as a 'Live Stock Inspector' in the office of the respondent No.2 at Ahmedabad.
3.2 He voluntarily retired on 31st March 1993 in the pay scale of Rs.2000 - 3500/.
3.3 According to the policy of the State Government, the selection grade of Rs.475 - 650/ was given to the petitioner in the year 1995 against the original pay scale of Rs.330 - 560/.
3.4 The pay scale was revised from Rs.330 - 560/ to Rs.1200 -
2040/ with effect from 1st January 1986. The State Government sanctioned the scheme of higher grade pay scale with effect from 1st January 1987. The petitioner completed twenty seven years of service in the same cadre and the respondent No.2, by order dated 23rd October 1992, fixed his pay with the benefit of five notional increments. The pay was accordingly fixed at Rs.2180/. According to the Government Resolution dated dated 6th August 1994, the pay scale of a retired employee before 1st August 1994 was not required to be refixed. However, in the case of petitioner, the same was refixed at Rs.2120/ by order dated 15th December 1994.
Page 2 of 12
HC-NIC Page 4 of 14 Created On Sat Aug 06 03:11:06 IST 2016
4 of 14
C/SCA/8924/1999 JUDGMENT
3.5 The petitioner, being dissatisfied with such order, has come up
with these writ applications. The connected writ application had to be filed because the representations were rejected.
4 Today when the matters are taken up for final hearing, Mr. Parikh, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State of Gujarat pointed out that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Kandoi Chimanlal Brijlal and others v. State of Gujarat and others [Special Civil Application No.10142 of 2009 and allied matters decided on 30th January 2013]. A learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the writ applications in the following terms:
"1. Heard Mr. K.B.Pujara with Mr.H.B.Singh and Mr. Biren A.Vaishnav, learned advocates for the petitioners, Mr. Rasesh Rindani learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Finance Department, Education Department, Director of Primary Education and District Education Officer, Mr.H.S.Munshaw, Ms. R.V.Acharya and Mr.Premal Joshi, learned advocates for respective District Primary Education officers of Mehsana, Bhavnagar, and Amreli Districts and Administrative Officers of respective Municipal School Boards of said districts. At the request of learned advocate for petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 8576 of 2008, the respondent no. 7 in the said petition is deleted. Since, in all these petitions, the grievance is identical and the issue for adjudication is the same, all these petitions are heard, considered and decided by this common judgment and order. All learned advocates requested that since all relevant material is on the record of SCA No. 10142 of 2009, that petition be treated as lead matter and reference to respective annexures is as per the paperbook of said petition.
2. Learned advocates for the petitioners have stated that, all the petitioners are senior citizen, they retired as teachers prior to 1.8.1994, the grievance voiced in these petitions is to the effect that, the higher grade scale to which the petitioners were entitled as per the policy of the Government, is not given to the petitioners and consequently their retirement dues are also paid in the lower payscale and the monthly pension which they have received in last two decades and which they receive every month, is also less than their entitlement. It is further, vehemently stated that the petitioners are more aggrieved by the fact that the entitlement of the petitioners is not to be adjudicated afresh, since this Court has gone into Page 3 of 12 HC-NIC Page 5 of 14 Created On Sat Aug 06 03:11:06 IST 2016
5 of 14 C/SCA/8924/1999 JUDGMENT that aspect more than once and the petitioners and similarly situated teachers are held to be entitled to what is claimed in these petitions, the authorities of the Government had even agreed to make the payment to the petitioners, the time limit given by this Court to make that payment has also lapsed before years, some of the petitioners who had approached this Court earlier and who had succeeded also, died without getting the fruits of their victory and all aged persons are again dragged into avoidable litigation by the respondent authorities, more particularly, because of the absolutely illegal, arbitrary and contemptuous stand of the officers of Directorate of Primary Education, Gujarat State, and the petitioners who are senior citizen, are not only not treated with dignity, but are humiliated.
3.1 Learned advocates for the petitioners submitted that all the petitioners have retired prior to 1.8.1994 and they were working as primary teachers. The petitioners were entitled to the benefit of three higher grade scales pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 5.7.1991. The said policy of the higher grade scale was effective from 1.6.1987 but prior thereto there was policy of the Government to grant selection grade/ senior scale to the teachers, on completion of certain number of years of service and all the petitioners were granted the said scale as well, at the relevant time. It is indicated by learned advocates for the petitioners, by referring to various orders of this Court as well as Government instructions, which are on record, reference to which is made in the subsequent part of this judgment, that what is claimed in these petitions is already ordered to be paid, with interest by this Court and that entitlement is not required to be gone into by this Court again. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the amount of selection grade which was recovered from primary teachers is already refunded to them with interest, pursuant to the order of this Court and as per the instructions of the Government dated 25.01.2008. Therefore, what remains to be done is grant of higher grade scale which is not done by the authorities and which is the subject matter of the grievance voiced in these petitions.
3.2 Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that so far the claim of the petitioners with regard to interest on the arrears in present petitions is concerned, even that point is concluded by this Court. To elaborate this, it is indicated that this Court has ordered payment of arrears flowing from grant of higher grade scale with interest @ 12% p.a. vide order dated 19.12.2001 passed in Special Civil Application No. 8871/1999 & allied matters, and vide order dated 4.8.2006 passed in Special Civil Application No. 8828/1995 and allied matters, it was directed that withheld pensionary benefits be paid with interest @ 10%. Therefore, following the latter order dated 4.8.2006 passed in Special Civil Application No. 8828/1995 and allied matters, respondents are at least required to be directed to pay arrears with interest @ 10% per annum.
Page 4 of 12
HC-NIC Page 6 of 14 Created On Sat Aug 06 03:11:06 IST 2016
6 of 14
C/SCA/8924/1999 JUDGMENT
3.3 It is also indicated that, petitioners of Special Civil Applications No.10878 of 2008, 11380 of 2008 and 11160 of 2008 were actually promoted as Education Inspector in the pay scale of Rs.400600 (corresponding prerevised scale of Rs.14002600) and to that extent, they can be said to have availed one actual promotion and therefore, they will be entitled to only two more higher grade scales which will take them to the maximum pay scale of Rs.20003500, and to that extent, their case stands on different footing, however, in principle, the grievance is the same. Therefore, it is indicated that, qua them, the directions that may be issued by this Court in this judgment may be implemented accordingly. It is also indicated that petitioners of Special Civil Application No.15829 of 2008 were petitioners in Special Civil Application No.9975 of 2007.
4. Learned advocates for the respondent District Authorities have in effect contended that it is the Director of Primary Education, Gujarat State, on whose advise and directions, the field officers are not releasing the benefits to the petitioners.
5. So far the authorities of the Government are concerned, none, neither Finance Department nor Education Department nor Director of Primary Education has filed reply to any of these petitions. They have not missed filing of replies to these petitions, because inspite of various orders passed by this Court giving directions to them to file reply, they have chosen to face contempt proceedings instead of filing reply. Reference in this regard can be made to the orders dated 17.9.2008, 11.10.2012 and 8.11.2012 on Special Civil Application No. 8576 of 2008. The above reference is only illustrative, since on Special Civil Application No. 10878 of 2008 also, on 19.9.2008, this Court had directed the respondents to file reply within six months, which they did not do. In this month also, this group of petitions was heard more than once by this Court and inspite of that, the State authorities, more particularly, Director of Primary Education, Gujarat State, has chosen, consciously, to contest these petitions, without making his stand clear on oath and today, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Rindani has made his submissions on behalf of these authorities, on the oral instructions which he got during the course of hearing of the matters.
6. In above situation, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Rindani submitted that it is not in dispute that all the petitioners are entitled to three higher grade scales pursuant to Government Resolution dated 5.7.1991. It is submitted that the employees, on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service, were entitled to first, second and third higher pay scale respectively. It is however contended that, he has instructions to contend that, since the petitioners had received selection grade, prior to coming into force of the present higher grade scale scheme dated 05.07.1991, the said selection grade has to be treated as one promotion or at least the first higher grade scale and therefore, now the petitioners would be entitled to Page 5 of 12 HC-NIC Page 7 of 14 Created On Sat Aug 06 03:11:06 IST 2016 7 of 14 C/SCA/8924/1999 JUDGMENT only remaining two higher grade scales. It is submitted that, the normal pay scale of the cadre of teacher to which the petitioners originally belonged at the relevant time was Rs.12002040 (effective from 1.1.1986) and corresponding next higher grade scale was Rs. 14002600, next higher to it was Rs. 16402900, next to it was Rs. 20003500 and next to it was Rs. 22004000. Therefore, it is contended that the maximum pay scale which could have been conferred to a teacher could be of Rs. 20003500 and could not be Rs. 22004000 which is claimed by the petitioners.
7. The above contention of learned AGP needs to be appreciated in the back ground of various orders of this Court, reference to which is made hereafter and the fact that as on 1.1.1986, though the payscale of the cadre of Primary Teacher, to which the petitioners belonged, was Rs. 12002040, as a matter of fact, all were drawing the pay in the pay scale of Rs. 14002600 since that was the corresponding revised pay scale of the selection grade which the petitioners had got prior to 31.12.1985. Thus, in effect, it is to be seen as to whether, the grant of selection grade should be treated as availing the first higher grade scale or, over and above it, the petitioners are entitled to three higher grade scales. If the grant of selection grade was to be treated as availing the first higher grade scale, the petitioners were entitled to only remaining two next higher grade scales which would take them to the maximum of the pay scale of Rs. 2000 3500. If on the other hand, the grant of selection grade was not to be treated as conferring the first of the three higher grade scales, the petitioners would be entitled to three more higher grade scales which would take them to the pay scale of Rs. 22004000. Thus, the only point to be answered is, as to whether the grant of selection grade to the primary teachers should be treated as availing first higher grade scale.
8. At the out set, it needs to be recorded that, above point is already gone into and concluded by this Court. There are more than one orders of this Court in this regard, which are on record, however, for the sake of convenience and brevity, the details of only relevant judgments and orders are recorded in this judgement, which are as under :
8.1 This Court in Special Civil Application No. 8871/1999 and cognate matters, after taking into consideration various orders passed by this Court, recorded judgment dated 19.12.2001 and gave directions to the respondents to give benefit of three higher grade scales to the petitioners therein and consequential benefit with 12% interest. The present petitioners are similarly situated to the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 8871/1999 and cognate matters.
8.2 The above judgment dated 19.12.2001 was sought to be reviewed by the authorities of the Government, and for that purpose, number of applications being Misc. Civil Application No. 2147 of 2003 and cognate applications were filed, inter alia, taking contention to the effect that, in Page 6 of 12 HC-NIC Page 8 of 14 Created On Sat Aug 06 03:11:06 IST 2016 8 of 14 C/SCA/8924/1999 JUDGMENT view of the clarification issued by the Government on 16.10.1993, the selection grade granted to a teacher, should be treated as if the first higher grade scale is already availed by him, and therefore, only remaining two higher grade scales will be granted to the teachers. While rejecting that contention and consequently the said review applications, this Court, on 24.11.2003 held that Government did not have any authority to issue such clarificatory instruction as contained in resolution dated 16.10.1993.
8.3 The above judgment of learned Single Judge dated 19.12.2001 and order dated 24.11.2003 i.e. the original judgment in the petitions, as well as the order rejecting the review applications of the Government, both were challenged by the authorities of the Government, by way of Letters Patent Appeal No. 1073 of 2004 and cognate matters, wherein, the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 14.10.2004 held that, Government did have powers to issue clarification as was done on 16.10.1993, however, true interpretation of the Government circulars pertaining to selection grade prevailing at the relevant time, read with Government Resolution dated 5.7.1991 adopting the higher grade scale scheme, read with the clarification dated 16.10.1993, would still entitle the primary teachers to avail three higher grade scales, over and above the selection grade which they would have availed at the relevant time.
8.4 The said decision of the Division Bench of this Court was challenged by the authorities of the Government before Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India by filing SLPs, being Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 18489/2005 and cognate matters and the same came to be dismissed on 16.9.2005. Reference to this fact is also made by the Government in its letter dated 25.1.2008 which is referred hereinafter.
8.5 Thus, whether a teacher who had availed selection grade as per policy of the Government in Education Department, was still entitled to get three higher grade scales flowing from the Government Resolution issued by the Finance Department on 5.7.1991, is an issue which has attained finality, as recorded above.
9. In above factual back ground, the only contention raised by the State authorities through learned AGP Mr. Rindani without filing any affidavit inreply, that grant of selection grade should be treated to have been conferred one of the three higher grade scales, can not be accepted. In fact, this contention of learned AGP is rejected by this Court time and again, even after the dismissal of SLP referred above. Reference in this regard may be made to the following further litigation.
9.1 Taking note of above judgments, this Court while adjudicating the grievance voiced by Gujarat State Pensioners' Federation, in Special Civil Application No. 8828/1995 and cognate matter, recorded a detailed judgment and gave directions on 4.8.2006. Relevant paragraphs of the Page 7 of 12 HC-NIC Page 9 of 14 Created On Sat Aug 06 03:11:06 IST 2016 9 of 14 C/SCA/8924/1999 JUDGMENT said judgment read as under:
7. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties, the issues arising in these petitions need not detain this Court long.
A Division Bench of this Court has already come to a definite conclusion in this regard. It is made clear that though the Government had the power to issue amending/clarificatory circular dated 16.10.93, with respect to those teachers who had already got selection grade, prior to the amending circular dated 26.12.85, the employees are entitled to retain the selection grade benefit as well as seek higher payscale pursuant to the resolution dated 5.7.91. To that extent, the petitioners' claim must succeed. However, if there are any teachers who had got selection grade after GR dated 26.12.85, such teacher cannot retain both the benefits i.e. of selection grade as well of higher pay scale. This has been made amply clear by the Division Bench.
8. For want of individual details of each employee, though this Court does not give specific individual directions, in the interest of justice, the respondents are directed to consider the case of each individual concerned employee herein and apply the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court as noted hereinabove. The respondents shall examine each individual case as provided hereinabove and the conclusion reached therein shall be communicated to the concerned teachers or their heirs. This exercise shall be done expeditiously and in any case not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9. If any of the teachers are held entitled to release of the amounts withheld from the pensionary benefits, the same shall be paid within the said period with simple interest at the rate of 10 per cent from the date such amount fell due and payable till its actual payment. Ultimate conclusion of the Government, if aggrieves any individual teacher, it will be open for him to seek redressel of the grievance in accordance with law.
10. With the above directions, the petitions are disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the above extent with no order as to costs.
9.2 In spite of above directions, primary teachers were made to approach this Court time and again. Few of such litigations were Special Civil Application No. 950/2007 and cognate matters decided on 11.1.2007, and Special Civil Application No. 23579 of 2007 and cognate matters decided on 13.9.2007. In those matters, this Court by referring to the above referred judgment dated 4.8.2006, again gave directions to the authorities.
9.3 Even thereafter, the authorities did not grant benefits to those petitioners, leave aside similarly situated teachers whose cases were directed to be examined by this Court in judgment dated 4.8.2006. Under Page 8 of 12 HC-NIC Page 10 of 14 Created On Sat Aug 06 03:11:06 IST 2016 10 of 14 C/SCA/8924/1999 JUDGMENT these circumstances, petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 950/2007 and cognate matters moved this Court under the Contempt of Courts Act by filing Miscellaneous Civil Application No.1955/2007 and cognate applications. Authorities of the Government, including the Director of Primary Education, appeared before this Court, where, the stand of the authorities of the Government and consequential directions issued by this Court, as reflected in the order dated 17.9.2007, reads as under:
Stand of the Authorities of the Government: Mr Sunit Shah, learned Government Pleader states, under instructions of Mr. R.C.Raval Director of Primary Education and Mr. Sutaria Officer on Special Duty, Education Department, that the respondent authorities have taken the decision in principle to accept the petitioners' representation, but in view of the fact that implementation of such decision will be required to be done in case of as many as 9000 to 10,000 teachers and this will involve examination of old service records of such a large number of individuals and the computation of the amounts will also require interpretation of certain rules, the entire process will take about five months' time for the purposes of actual implementation and payment.
Directions issued by this Court : It is, therefore, clear that the respondents will make the payments pursuant to the decision on the petitioners' representation in all such cases by 31st January 2008 as per the statement made by Mr Sunit Shah, learned Government Pleader.
We accordingly dispose of these applications with a direction to the respondents to carry out the statements made above within the timelimit indicated hereinabove.
Subject to the above direction, notice is discharged.
10. Thereafter, authorities of the Government in Education Department, issued written instructions to the Director of Primary Education on 25.1.2008 and 29.1.2008 to do needful. These written instructions were, on the basis of and after referring to all the above referred judgments and orders of this Court, including the judgment dated 4.8.2006 as well as the contempt proceedings dropped by this Court on 17.9.2007 in view of the statement made by competent and responsible officer, through responsible Law Officer.
11. Inspite of above facts, even today, those retired primary teachers, including those who were petitioners before this Court, have stood there only. Some of them have died also. To give one example, it is noted that one Mr. Amrutlal Dave was one of the petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 9959 of 2007, in whose favour the order dated 13.4.2007 Page 9 of 12 HC-NIC Page 11 of 14 Created On Sat Aug 06 03:11:06 IST 2016 11 of 14 C/SCA/8924/1999 JUDGMENT was recorded by this Court and thereafter, the statement was made before contempt Bench of this Court on 17.9.2007 to make payment before 31.1.2008, died and his widow Kundanben is petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 5581 of 2009, which is being considered in this group of petitions. Be it noted that the said petitioner was from Bhavnagar district and there was specific written instruction of the Government dated 29.1.2008, which is referred above and even then it is the widow who is petitioner before this Court. Even her husband ought not to have been here.
12. Reverting back to the grievance of the petitioners, vizaviz the contest put forward by the Directorate of Primary Education, I find that this court at this stage, has nothing to adjudicate as to whether the petitioners are right in their claim or not. More than once, the stand of the authorities which is taken now, is rejected by this Court. It has attained finality right up to the Apex Court. Under these circumstances, to say that the stand of the authorities of the Government is rejected would mean that, it was at least open to them to do so at this stage. In my view, respondents are not justified even to that extent. It is to be noted that the stand which is taken now could not have been written on oath by any officer by filing reply, since that would be in straight conflict with the judicial pronouncement of this Court. Therefore, inspite of the direction of this Court, the authorities have chosen not to file reply. But at the same time, have asked learned AGP to reiterate the said stand. This is required to be viewed seriously and keeping this aspect in mind, in the final directions which are issued by this Court in this judgment, cost is also being imposed against the authorities. While awarding cost, this Court has also kept in mind the principles annunciated by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in this regard in the judgment in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association versus Union of India reported in (2005) 6 SCC 344, more particularly, para 37 and 39 thereof.
13. Before parting it also needs to be observed that, in the judgment recorded by this Court dated 4.8.2006 in Special Civil Application No. 8828/1995 and Special Civil Application No. 8829 of 1995, which were filed by the Pensioners' Association, it was directed that the case of each individual employee shall be looked into by the authorities and appropriate decision shall be taken and communicated to the concerned teachers or their heirs. The same is not done. Even in the contempt proceedings referred above, time was prayed for by the State authorities mainly on the ground that there are about 9000 to 10000 such cases and therefore some time is required, which was stipulated to be 31.1.2008 and inspite of that, not only nothing, in consonance with the above orders, is done by the authorities, on the contrary, fresh round of avoidable litigation is thrust upon senior citizens and the same is sought to be contested without filing affidavitinreply, inspite of directions of this Court. Therefore, it is directed that, no similarly situated employees should Page 10 of 12 HC-NIC Page 12 of 14 Created On Sat Aug 06 03:11:06 IST 2016 12 of 14 C/SCA/8924/1999 JUDGMENT be made to approach this Court and Principal Secretary, Education Department shall do needful in that regard.
14. Learned advocates for the District Primary Education Officers have taken the stand to contest these petitions. Learned advocates for the petitioners have raised serious grievance against such a stand of the field officers. There is some substance in the grievance of the petitioners in this regard, however, when this Court has found that this is the Directorate of Primary Education who is the Head of Department of these field officers, has taken such an adamant, illegal and even contemptuous stand, to make any observation against field officers, would be less justified. The stand of Director of Primary Education on the face of various orders of this Court which are referred above, is worth initiating contempt proceedings against him. However, it is left to the Government in Education Department to look into the matter with due seriousness and do needful against erring officers. For the present, by awarding cost to the tune of Rs. 5000/ payable to each petitioner, the matter is left there.
15. For the reasons recorded above, this court arrives at the judgment and passes the order, as under :
i) Inspite of more than one judgments of this Court against the respondent authorities, the denial of benefit of higher grade scale to the petitioners as claimed by them and similarly situated persons, is held to be illegal, arbitrary and lacking bonafide on the part of respondent authorities, more particularly, Director of Primary Education, Gujarat State.
ii) The petitioners shall be paid all the three higher grade scales as per Government Resolution dated 5.7.1991, over and above selection grade availed by them which was prior to 26.12.1985, as held by this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1073/2004 and cognate matters vide judgment dated 14.10.2004.
iii) The retirement dues of the petitioners shall also be recalculated accordingly.
iv) Arrears of difference of pay as well as retirement dues shall be calculated and paid within a period of four months from today.
v) The petitioners shall also be entitled to interest from 1.1.1995 till 31.1.2013 on the above amount, at the rate of 10% per annum, which shall also be paid along with arrears, as directed above.
vi) While implementing these directions, it shall also be kept in view that the petitioners of Special Civil Applications No.10878 of 2008, 11380 of 2008 and 11160 of 2008, had availed one promotion on the post of Education Inspector and therefore, they will be entitled to only remaining two higher grade scales and qua them, the directions shall be implemented accordingly.
Page 11 of 12
HC-NIC Page 13 of 14 Created On Sat Aug 06 03:11:06 IST 2016
13 of 14
C/SCA/8924/1999 JUDGMENT
vii) For the reasons recorded in paras8.5, 9.2, 9.3 and 10 to 14, more particularly para 12 of this judgment, each petitioners shall be paid cost of Rs. 5000/ by the Director of Primary Education, Gujarat State, which shall be paid within a period of three months from today. It would be open to the State authorities to recover this amount from erring officer(s), in accordance with law.
viii.The Principal Secretary, Education Department is further directed to carry out the directions contained in para 13 of this judgment within a period of three months from today.
Petitions stand allowed. Rule made absolute with costs as directed above."
5 Both these writ applications are also disposed of in terms of the judgment and order passed by this Court referred to above.
6 The impugned order dated 15th December 1992 is hereby ordered to be quashed. Appropriate orders shall be passed in accordance with the judgment which has been referred to above and the requisite arrears shall be calculated and paid to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. Direct service is permitted.
(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.) chandresh Page 12 of 12 HC-NIC Page 14 of 14 Created On Sat Aug 06 03:11:06 IST 2016 14 of 14