Gujarat High Court
Pinakin Narendrabhai Patel vs Gujarat Energy Transmission ... on 29 January, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/297/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 297 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
PINAKIN NARENDRABHAI PATEL
Versus
GUJARAT ENERGY TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD. & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR YOGEN N PANDYA(5766) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS.SURBHI BHATI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR PREMAL R JOSHI(1327) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 29/01/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara in reference IT No.165 of 2019 dated 15.04.2024 by which the Industrial Tribunal has granted the notional benefits from 01.07.1990 and pay scale of 1180-3050 notionally instead of actually.
Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Sat Feb 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 03 21:44:50 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/297/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2025 undefined
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as a Meter Tester from 17.06.1989 in the pay scale of 890-220 on Grade-III. Petitioner possessing the qualification of diploma electrical and on 15.03.1990, he applied for Grade-I from Grade-II to the Gujarat Electricity Board. It is claimed by the petitioner that similarly situated employees namely Mr.D.L.Parmar and Mr.R.H.Mengar were appointed on Grade-III and thereafter, has been given the benefits of Grade-I pay scale i.e. 1180-3050. However, though petitioner was called for the interview, but has not been given the said benefit for unknown reasons. The dispute was raised before the Industrial Tribunal which was registered being Reference IT No.165 of 2019 to decide that whether the petitioner is entitled for the pay scale of 1180-3050 of Grade-I from the date of his initial appointment. The Industrial Tribunal after considering the submission and the evidence placed on record has allowed the reference filed by the petitioner, however, pay scale of 1180-3050 was granted notionally from 01.07.1990 to 18.04.1992 till he was actually appointed on the post of Meter Tester Grade-I. Challenging the Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Sat Feb 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 03 21:44:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/297/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2025 undefined above order, granting benefits notionally, the present petition was filed.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr.Pandya for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.Joshi for the respondent.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Pandya submits that though the juniors to the present petitioner namely Mr.D.L.Parmar and Mr.R.H.Mengar were granted for the pay scale of grade 1 i.e. 1180-3050 from the date of their initial appointment and they had been paid actually. However, Industrial Court without assigning any reasons has awarded the benefits notionally.
4.1. Learned advocate Mr.Pandya has relied on the circular passed by the respondent-Board dated 15.06.1990 wherein, it is held that diploma work engineers, working below the pay scale of 1180-3050 in various offices and sub stations of the Board and amongst these diploma holders, vacancies of PA Grade-I should be filled up. Learned advocate Mr.Pandya submits that the petitioner, without having any reasons has been deprived from the above benefits of the pay scale from the period of 01.07.1990 to 18.04.1992 and therefore, order passed by the Industrial Tribunal qua Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Sat Feb 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 03 21:44:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/297/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2025 undefined not granting the actual benefit for the aforesaid period is required to be set aside.
5. On the other hand learned advocate Mr.Joshi submits that the petitioner is claiming the benefit of the circular dated 15.06.1990 and filed the reference in the year 2019. Learned advocate Mr.Joshi submits that in the reference also no reasons has been stated for filing the reference after such long period. Learned advocate Mr.Joshi submits that after assigning detailed reasons, Industrial Tribunal has awarded the reference in favour of the petitioner, but the benefit was granted notionally and therefore, no interference is required.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned advocates, it is undisputed fact that the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Reference (I.T.) No.165 of 2019, directing the respondent to pay the pay scale of Meter Tester Grade-I from 01.07.1990 is not challenged by the respondent-Board.
7. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order qua not granting the benefit actually on the ground that other two similarly situated persons who are junior of the petitioner were granted the benefit of the circular Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Sat Feb 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 03 21:44:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/297/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2025 undefined dated 15.06.1990 and were placed in the pay scale of 1180-3050 from 18.04.1991. The Industrial Tribunal has not assigned any reasons for not granting the above benefits actually, but only has recorded that as the reference was filed by delayed, therefore, instead of granting the benefit actually from 01.07.1990, it should be granted notionally.
8. This Court is of the opinion that when the other similarly situated persons were granted the benefits from their initial appointment i.e. 18.04.1991, then the petitioner cannot be deprived from the benefits from the date of the circular i.e. 15.06.1990. As the Industrial Tribunal has granted benefits from 01.07.1990, the same should be granted actually, instead of notionally.
9. So far as the delay aspect is considered, when the petitioner was entitled for the benefit which was not granted, the same would be considered as continuous wrong and therefore, the benefit cannot be denied for his legitimate right on the ground of delay. In view of the same, the present petition is required to be allowed and the respondent is required to be directed to grant the benefits from 01.07.1990 to 18.04.1992 on pay scale of Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Sat Feb 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 03 21:44:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/297/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2025 undefined 1180-3050 actually.
10. Resultantly, this petition is allowed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) NIVYA A. NAIR Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Sat Feb 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 03 21:44:50 IST 2025