Gujarat High Court
Balvantbhai M Trivadi vs State Of Gujarat Thro Secretary & on 15 January, 2016
Author: J.B.Pardiwala
Bench: J.B.Pardiwala
C/SCA/1270/2013 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1270 of 2013
[On note for speaking to minutes of order dated 14/12/2015 in
C/SCA/1270/2013 ]
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1271 of 2013
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1272 of 2013
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15967 of 2013
TO
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15973 of 2013
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16014 of 2013
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16154 of 2013
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3312 of 2014
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5143 of 2014
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4268 of 2015
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4274 of 2015
==========================================================
BALVANTBHAI M TRIVADI....Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT THRO SECRETARY & 1....Respondent(s) ========================================================== Appearance:
MS TEJAL K SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 2 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA Page 1 of 2 HC-NIC Page 1 of 16 Created On Sat Jan 16 02:17:39 IST 2016 1 of 16 C/SCA/1270/2013 ORDER Date : 15/01/2016 ORAL COMMON ORDER 1 By this Note for Speaking to Minutes, the applicants - original petitioners have pointed out that there is a typographical error in paras 9 and 14 of the judgment and order passed by this Court dated 14th December, 2015 in the Special Civil Application No.1270 of 2013 and allied matters. In the two paras referred to above, there is a reference of the Government Resolution dated 12th June, 2012. However, it is pointed out that the correct date of the said resolution is 21st June, 2012.
2 The Registry shall carry out the necessary correction and issue a fresh writ of the order. The note is accordingly disposed of.
(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.) chandresh Page 2 of 2 HC-NIC Page 2 of 16 Created On Sat Jan 16 02:17:39 IST 2016 2 of 16 C/SCA/1270/2013 CAV JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1270 of 2013 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1271 of 2013 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1272 of 2013 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15967 of 2013 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15968 of 2013 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15969 of 2013 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15970 of 2013 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15971 of 2013 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15972 of 2013 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15973 of 2013 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16014 of 2013 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16154 of 2013 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3312 of 2014 With Page 1 of 14 HC-NIC Page 3 of 16 Created On Sat Jan 16 02:17:39 IST 2016 3 of 16 C/SCA/1270/2013 CAV JUDGMENT SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5143 of 2014 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4268 of 2015 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4274 of 2015 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 India NO or any order made thereunder ?
========================================================== BALVANTBHAI M TRIVADI....Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT THRO SECRETARY & 1....Respondent(s) ========================================================== Appearance:
MR DP VORA ADVOCATE WITH MS TEJAL K SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR SWAPNESHWAR GAUTAM, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 2 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA Date : 14/12/2015 Page 2 of 14 HC-NIC Page 4 of 16 Created On Sat Jan 16 02:17:39 IST 2016
4 of 16 C/SCA/1270/2013 CAV JUDGMENT CAV COMMON JUDGMENT 1 Since the issues involved in all the captioned writ applications are more or less the same, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
2 By these writ applications, the applicants have prayed that the Government Resolution dated 12.06.2012 (at Annexure: 'F' to this petition) be quashed being unreasonable and illegal. They have further prayed for a writ of mandamus to the respondents restraining them from recovering any amount paid to them towards the first higher pay scale and have prayed that the second higher pay scale be granted with effect from 01.09.2005.
3 The facts in brief are as under:
3.1 The petitioners were appointed sometime in December 1979 on different posts under a scheme known as the "Sarvodaya Scheme". The "Sarvodaya Scheme" was floated by the State Government for rendering social services. The Government used to pay 100% grant for running the centres all over the State and the appointment of the staff was also made according to the rules approved by the Government.
3.2 All of a sudden, the State Government sometime in 1981 wounded up the scheme. The petitioners, thereafter, were absorbed in the District Page 3 of 14 HC-NIC Page 5 of 16 Created On Sat Jan 16 02:17:39 IST 2016 5 of 16 C/SCA/1270/2013 CAV JUDGMENT Panchayat of Bhavnagar in their the then existing pay scales and allowances with effect from 01.09.1981. The State Government passed a resolution dated 15.12.1981 in that regard and absorbed all the employees on regular basis. They all were reverted to the posts of Junior Clerk, etc. Their services were considered a fresh from 01.04.1987. Their pensionary benefits were also granted from 01.04.1987, although they were initially appointed in November 1979.
4 In such circumstances referred to above, a batch of writ applications was filed in the past being Special Civil Application No.10506 of 2002 and allied matters. The genesis of the present litigation lies in the order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 05.10.2007, which reads as under:
"2. As per the case of the petitioners herein, State of Gujarat was running various centres under a scheme known as Sarvodaya Scheme in the state for rendering various social services for which the Government was paying 100 per cent grant for running the said centres and the appointment of the staff was made as per rules and approved by the Government. Petitioners were appointed on different posts as mentioned in Annexure A to respective petitions. Development Commissioner who was supervising the scheme had fixed the basic pay of the petitioners. Thereafter, by resolution dated 18.7.1980, the Government decided to abolish the Sarvodaya Scheme and on 30.7.1981, a resolution was passed. Para 5 thereof was providing that the full time employees under the sarvodaya centres who had completed one year of services under the scheme as on 31.3.1981 will be absorved in ex cadre posts under the panchayat in their existing pay scale and the existing salaries and allowances w.e.f. 1.9.1981. Ex cadre employees of the scheme representing to absorb in regular cadre under the panchayat filed SCA No. 4246 of 1983 and during the pendency of the petition, by letter dated 16.12.1986, Government had taken decision to absorb the ex cadre employees in the panchayat service and to give benefit given to panchayat employees, therefore, said petition was withdrawn. Panchayat Service Selection Board was thereafter instructed by the State Government that Page 4 of 14 HC-NIC Page 6 of 16 Created On Sat Jan 16 02:17:39 IST 2016 6 of 16 C/SCA/1270/2013 CAV JUDGMENT until question of absorption of employees in regular panchayat service is not solved, no further vacancies should be filled up by letter dated 18.3.1987. But thereafter, Government passed resolution dated 15.12.1987 and absorbed petitioners in the scale of Rs.9501500 (pre revised pay scale of Rs.260400) i.e. In the lower pay scale. It is pertinent to note that after this resolution, Government gave equal pay scales to employees of District Panchayat Bhavnagar Panchmahals, Jamnagar and Amreli but thereafter by order dated 22.9.1988 and 15.12.88, DDO concerned instructed to implement resolution dated 15.12.87, the district employees filed SCA NO. 8066 of 1988 and same is pending before this court as submitted by petitioners.
3. In view of the resolution dated 15.12.87 absorbing petitioners in a lower scale and also asked them to give undertaking prescribed by the Government as per the resolution dated 15.12.87, petitioners gave undertaking with objction but were given consent for being absorbed in the scale of Rs.9501500 but the said undertakings were given under protest and without prejudice to their rights and contentions to challenge the decision. As per the case of petitioner, such decision of absorbing petitioners in the pay scale of Rs.12002040 (pre revised pay scale of Rs.330560 and not absorbing them in equivalent posts carrying pay scale of Rs.14002600 is illegal arbitrary and illegal Based upon these facts, petitioners have filed these petitions before this Court.
4. The employee of this Yojna challenged the decision of Government before this Hon'ble Court. As a result of intervention of this Hon'ble Court, a compromise was reached between the Government and it was decided to absorb these employees in Government Panchayat services. Thereafter, employees were absorbed as Excadre employees in Panchayat services in temporary basis with existing pay scale and allowances which they were drawing when they were working under the said Yojna without any future benefits like promotion, increments and other retiral benefits.
5. Thereafter, the employees agitated against such conditions imposed by the Government. They made representation to the Government which was considered favourably and these employees were treated as fresh recruits in Panchayat service w.e.f. 1st April 1987. As per the facts of these petitions, some of the petitioners have retired from service whereas some are in service, have to retire afterwards. Learned advocate Ms. Shah submitted that identical facts has been examined by this Court in SCA 14642 of 2003 (Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Akshay H. Mehata, J.) where petitioners were retired from service, in this two matters difference is only that petitioners are working with the respondent likely to retire after some time, except that, there is no other difference and factual aspect between earlier matter and present petitions.
6. Learned advocate Ms. Shah submitted that decision given by this Court Page 5 of 14 HC-NIC Page 7 of 16 Created On Sat Jan 16 02:17:39 IST 2016 7 of 16 C/SCA/1270/2013 CAV JUDGMENT as referred above is not challenged by the State Government and decision to that effect has been taken by the respondent.
7. Learned advocate Ms. Shah relied upon the decisions of this Court in identical facts in SCA 6992/2002, 6996 of 2002, 8680 of 2002, 8972 of 2002, and 8974 of 2002 dated 9/3/2006 (Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Akil Qureshi, J) this group of petition has been also decided by this Court which having identical facts and therefore, learned advocate Ms. Shah submitted that some suitable direction may be issued to the respondent to decide their claim or grievance on the basis of aforesaid two decisions within some reasonable time.
8. In view of the aforesaid factual aspect as well as the decisions rendered by this Court on the basis of identical facts, it is directed to the respondent to consider the grievance of the petitioner, and to grant consequential service benefits/pensionary benefit from the date of initial appointment and to fix their salary on the basis of their original respective pay scale as decided by this Court while considering the decisions of this Court as referred above and pass appropriate reasoned order within a period of two months from the date of receiving the copy of the said order and communicate the decision to the petitioner. Meaning thereby, in SCA No. 10506 of 2002, as per AnnexureA, original pay scale of the petitioners therein is Rs.300560, so, benefits have to be given to them on that basis as per the decisions of this court referred to above and in the same manner, benefits have to be given to the petitioners in other petitions on the basis of their respective original pay scales."
5 Mr. D.P. Vora, the learned counsel appearing with Ms. Tejal Shah the learned advocate for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the State Government should have considered the past service of the petitioners in the "Sarvodaya Yojna".
6 On the other hand, these writ applications have been vehemently opposed by Mr. Swapneshwar Gautam, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent State of Gujarat. He has relied upon the following averments made in the affidavitinreply filed on behalf of the respondent No.2:
Page 6 of 14HC-NIC Page 8 of 16 Created On Sat Jan 16 02:17:39 IST 2016 8 of 16 C/SCA/1270/2013 CAV JUDGMENT "6. I say and submit that petitioner seek order to quash and set aside the government resolution dated 21.06.2012 which was passed by the respondent no.1 and further petitioner seeks direction to the respondents not to recover any amount from the said petitioner about the first higher pay scale and second higher pay scale be granted from 01.09.2005 as well as arrears which was given to the petitioner earlier.
7. I say and submit that petitioner has made an application to consider his service continuous and to give allowances. Letter of Panchayat and Rural Housing and Development Department, Sachivayala, Gandhinagar dated 09.02.2009 to give pay allowances to the petitioner the department has counted from 01.09.1981 and all the other benefits.
8. I say and submit that Panchayat Department by letter dated 01.04.1987 benefit for nine years is given. But petitioner has asked for 18 years for which petitioner is not entitled as per circular dated 21.06.2012.
As per government resolution dated 16.08.1994, 02.07.2007 as the post had been cancelled due to which the employees has become surplus. As petitioner had become surplus employee, he cannot claim for higher pay scale for 18 years. Petitioner was already given benefit of nine years. As petitioner is not entitled for 18 years as per the government resolution of Panchayat Rural Housing and Development Department, petitioner was given 1st Higher grade from, 01.04.1987 after completion of nine years which was given as per the guidelines of the Finance Department."
7 According to Mr. Gautam, no case is made out for grant of any relief and all the writ applications deserve to be rejected.
8 Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration is whether the petitioners are entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for in these writ applications.
9 The Government Resolution dated 12.06.2012, the free English translation of the same reads as under:
"Circular: Page 7 of 14 HC-NIC Page 9 of 16 Created On Sat Jan 16 02:17:39 IST 2016 9 of 16 C/SCA/1270/2013 CAV JUDGMENT The guidelines with regard to the higher pay scale of the employees of the various district panchayats has been sought by the various district panchayats as the same employees absorbed due to closure of the Sarvodaya Scheme in the State.
2. In one case the department has sought for the guidance of the Finance Department in the State in which the Finance Department has as per the provision of the Notification No.3(15) dated 16.08.1994 and the provision of Notification No.2(11) dated 01.07.2007 stated that due to nonavailability of the posts in the department / offices the previous accounts / service of the officers are not to be taken into account for determining the higher pay scale and the services performed as excadre in the district panchayat are also not to take into account for determining the higher pay scale and the Finance Department has advised to approve the first higher pay scale of the employees of the Sarvodaya Scheme from the date they were absorbed. The Finance Department has advised to get approval for the higher pay grade for these employees after nine years from 01.04.1987 therefore, this fact is to be brought to the notice of all the District Panchayats and to proceed on the issue of the higher pay grade of the exemployees of the Sarvodaya Scheme in accordance with the above mentioned."
10 The State Government seems to have taken a policy decision as regards the employees of the "Sarvodaya Yojna", who were absorbed in the panchayat service. It was resolved that the first higher grade scale be given on completion of nine years of service from 01.04.1987.
11 There is a reference of the Clause 3(15) of the Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994. The free English translation of the same reads as under:
Page 8 of 14HC-NIC Page 10 of 16 Created On Sat Jan 16 02:17:39 IST 2016 10 of 16 C/SCA/1270/2013 CAV JUDGMENT "The service of surplus employee due to discontinuance of posts in the department/office in the former department/office shall not be taken into account.
11.1 There is also a reference of the Clause 2(11) of the Government Resolution dated 02.07.2007. The free English translation of the same reads as under:
"The service of surplus employee due to discontinuance of posts in the department/office in the former department/office shall not be taken into account.
12 The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Prabhudas K. Nimava vs. State of Gujarat dated 16.10.2001 rendered in the Special Civil Application No.1696 of 1996 and allied matters. Almost identical issues fell for the consideration before a learned Single Judge of this Court regarding the employees who were serving with the 'Sarvodaya Yojna'. A learned Single Judge allowed the writ applications observing as under:
2. Heard Ms. D.T. Shah and Mr. N.R. Tandel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. The petitioners of each the petition have invoked jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India and have prayed that appropriate order be issued directing the respondentsState to grant retirement benefits available to the Panchayat employees under the Government Resolution along with other benefits. They have prayed for appropriate writ, direction or order for setting aside the order rejecting the claim of the petitioners for pensionary benefits and also declare the Resolution dated 15.12.1987 as illegal and arbitrary.
3. The contention of the petitioner is that initially there was a scheme Page 9 of 14 HC-NIC Page 11 of 16 Created On Sat Jan 16 02:17:39 IST 2016 11 of 16 C/SCA/1270/2013 CAV JUDGMENT originally called as "Sarvodaya Yojna" and each of them were employed for the activities of scheme. Undisputedly Sarvodya Yojna had Government sponsorship. It is inter alia contended that their services in the Sarvodaya Yojna should be taken into account and will be considered as continuous service under the respondentDistrict Panchayat.
4. Affidavitinreply, by the State Government has not been filed.
Affidavitinreply filed by the respondentPanchayat is at page 68 in Special Civil Application 1696 of 1996.
5. The contention raised by the respondentPanchayat is that the affidavitinreply and is that originally there were two cadres in the Sarvodaya Yojna; one was excadre and another was education cadre. The petitioners are the excadre employees of Sarvodaya Yojna, and therefore, not entitled to any benefit as per the Resolution, annexureI (page 30) of 1981, read with Government Resolution of 1990, passed by the Government. The other contention is that whether the petitioner should be made entitled to pensionary benefit or not is a question of policy and the said policy has been decided by the State Government. The Resolution issued by the Finance Department of the State of Gujarat dated 29.10.90 would not apply to an employee like present petitioners. It is contended by the Panchayat that the petitioners services are allocated by Resolution dated 15.12.87 and at that point of time the each petitioner has given an undertaking and has accepted the Resolution dated 15.12.87 issued by the Government and therefore the say of the petitioner is not acceptable. For short the respondent Panchayat says interalia, that claim of the petitioner cannot be accepted on the principle of estoppel, in view of the written undertaking given by him.
6. The averments made in the petition and the facts reflected in the rejoinderaffidavit if considered closely, the reasoning adopted by this Court while dealing with Spl.C.A. No.13589/94 (Coram : M.S. Parikh, J.) would positively help the present petitioner. The Court at the relevant point of time had mostly on the same set of facts has expressed clearly that services rendered with Sarvoday Yojna should be taken in to account for the purpose. I would like to reproduce the relevant part of the order, because the same would help this Court in concluding the dispute raised by the present petitioners: "On a reference to the impugned order dated 12.10.94 AnnexureE it can be seen that the petitioner's request for grant of pension has been turned down on the ground that the resolution dated 15.12.1987 provides for the date of absorption in Panchayat service from 1.4.1987 and that the prior service in Sarvodaya Scheme would not be counted for the purpose of terminal benefit. It is in this connection that a reference has been made to the representation of exemployees Page 10 of 14 HC-NIC Page 12 of 16 Created On Sat Jan 16 02:17:39 IST 2016 12 of 16 C/SCA/1270/2013 CAV JUDGMENT dated 1.10.1993. Reference has further been made to certain resolutions and circulars in the said representation. They have also been placed on record at AnnexureI, J, & K. While taking the decision impugned in this petition the case of the petitioner has not been taken into consideration in the light of the aforesaid resolutions/circulars and the joint representation made by the exemployees of Sarvodaya Yojna.
In so far as the case of the petitioner is concerned he has put up service of around 8 years and 2 months with effect from 1.4.1987 and that is how if the period is counted from 1.4.1987 the service cannot be said to be pensionable. However, the stand of the petitioner is based upon the aforesaid circulars/ resolutions with the result that if the service rendered in the Sarvodaya Yojna, is added, the petitioner would be covered under the pensionable period".
7. Ms. Shah has rightly pointed out that there is Government Resolution dated 16.4.98 granting pensionary benefits to the teachers allocated to the panchayat service who were initially serving under the Sarvodaya Yojna, this add strength to the case for the petitioners. This policy decision has created discrimination. Undisputedely the present petitioners were with Sarvodaya Yojna and under the policy of the Government, services covered under the Sarvodaya Yojna were to be terminated. Because of the intervention of this Court the petitioner could save their termination and were continued in service, in return. They were allocated to the panchayat service in 1981. Thereafter after a lapse of time i.e. approximately 6 years, the Government Resolution dated 15.12.87 was issued by the Government and a written undertaking was obtained from the employees who on threat of termination might have agreed to any proposition by the Government. The stand of the State should be of model humble employer and in consonance with the policy of a welfare state. When the respondentState has granted benefit to the teachers, when a person serving in the education cadre of Sarvodaya Yojna is granted pensionary benefit, then the excadre employee could not have been ignored by the State. I agree that while carving out one policy the Government is mainly considering the financial aspect and the burden which may have to be carried by the State for long years to come but I am afraid that the number of excadre servants of old Sarvodaya Yojna would be in large number. On one hand the State has introduced many welfare scheme including pension schemes for various class and categories of persons and on the other surprising discrimination has been carried out. The policy decision normally could not have been interfered by this Court by exercising jurisdiction under Article 226. But when the policy qua to different cadres serving with original Sarvodaya scheme is found to be discriminating or unhealthy this Court shall have put the things in order. While dealing with the above Page 11 of 14 HC-NIC Page 13 of 16 Created On Sat Jan 16 02:17:39 IST 2016 13 of 16 C/SCA/1270/2013 CAV JUDGMENT referred Spl. C.A. this Court had directed at the relevant point of time the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner, in light of the Government Resolutions and other circulars. The apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that if the present petitioner are directed to approach to the State again for making representation then this senior citizens aged about more than 65 years would not get advantage of the policy of the State reflected in the various resolutions issued granting pensionary and other benefits to such employee. Undisputedly the present petitioners have served for several years in the panchayat service, the State should not have hesitation in considering their earlier service rendered to the state during 1981 to 1987 or even prior to that day i.e. the day on which they were recruited by the Sarvodaya Yojna. As per the prevailing policy of earlier years it is rightly submitted that when Sarvodaya Scheme was envisaged the state policy was in confirmity at that relevant point of time and therefore this petition should be allowed. The Government Resolution dated 15.12.87 annexureJ and other orders rejecting the request to grant pensionary benefit are hereby quashed and setaside qua all the three present petitioners and shall not have binding effect on the present petitioner. The state is directed to consider the services rendered by present petitioners from their initial date of appointment when they were absorbed in the Panchayat cadre i.e. from the year 198081 till the date of retirement or otherwise for pensionary benefits as continuous service. Further it is observed that this period should be treated to grant pensionary benefit only and they will not be entitled to claim any cash or other financial benefit. I am told that the present petitioner were given other benefits like leave etc., for their earlier services with Sarvodaya scheme.
8. Rule is made absolute to above extent. RespondentState is directed to calculate the pensionary benefit of the present petitioner within four months and should see that the arrears are cleared within six months from the date of the receipt of writ. The state is further directed that they get the pensionary benefits regularly immediately after the payment of arrears. The request to award interest by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not accepted in view of the fact that this Court has allowed the petition, exercising discretion in favour of the old employee, in light of the Government Resolution issued in the year 1998 in favour of the employees serving in the education cadre of Sarvodaya scheme visavis other policy Resolutions passed in recent years. Direct Service is permitted."
13 I am in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge referred to above and propose to follow the same in the Page 12 of 14 HC-NIC Page 14 of 16 Created On Sat Jan 16 02:17:39 IST 2016 14 of 16 C/SCA/1270/2013 CAV JUDGMENT case in hand. I am inclined to take the view drawing analogy from the above noted judgment that for the purpose of Higher Pay Scale, the period of service in the Sarvodaya Scheme should be taken into consideration. I may only give a fair idea about the details as regards the effect of the first higher pay scale and the second higher pay scale as under:
No. Petition No. Name of the Benefits 1st 2nd Higher pay Date petitioners higher pay scale scale 1 S.C.A. No.1270 Balvantbhai M. 1st Higher pay 2nd Higher pay 21.04.2010 of 2013 Trivedi scale is given scale is given 2 S.C.A. No.1271 Dhayabhai 1st Higher pay 2nd Higher pay 15.05.2005 of 2013 Kalabhai Vala scale is given scale is not given 3 S.C.A. No.1272 Bhavanbhai B. 1st Higher pay 2nd Higher pay 04/12/09 of 2013 Khatana scale is given scale is given 4 S.C.A.No.15967 Jiveraj Valji 1st Higher pay 2nd Higher pay 27.09.2012 of 2013 Bagda scale is given scale is given 5 S.C.A.No.15968 Deveshi Hamir 1st Higher pay 2nd Higher pay '05.03.2010 of 2013 Velari scale is given scale is given 6 S.C.A.No.15969 Bansidas P. 1st Higher pay 2nd Higher pay -
of 2013 Gaondaliya scale is given scale is given 7 S.C.A.No.15970 Pravin K. 1st Higher pay 2nd Higher pay -
of 2013 Gosaliya scale is given scale is given
8 S.C.A.No.15971 Jitendra L. 1st Higher pay 2nd Higher pay
of 2013 Sarkhedi scale is given scale is given
9 S.C.A.No.15972 Mahipat C. Bhatt 1st Higher pay 2nd Higher pay '11.11.2011
of 2013 scale is given scale is given
10 S.C.A.No.15973 Dhirubhai 1st Higher pay 2nd Higher pay -
of 2013 Singara scale is given scale is given
11 S.C.A.No.16014 Hardas Kalabhai 1st Higher pay 2nd Higher pay 22.03.2010
of 2013 Zalavadiya scale is given scale is not
given
12 S.C.A.No.16154 Ramesh C. 1st Higher pay 2nd Higher pay '03.02.2012
of 2013 Trivedi scale is given scale is given
13 S.C.A. No.3312 Hasmukh Goda 1st Higher pay 2nd Higher pay '15.05.2012
of 2014 scale is given scale is given
14 S.C.A. No.5143 Sankerbhai 1st Higher pay 2nd Higher pay
of 2014 Namlabhai Patel scale is given scale is not
Page 13 of 14
HC-NIC Page 15 of 16 Created On Sat Jan 16 02:17:39 IST 2016
15 of 16
C/SCA/1270/2013 CAV JUDGMENT
given
15 S.C.A. No.4268 Harshedbhai S. 1 Higher pay 2nd Higher pay
st
of 2015 Trivedi scale is not scale is not
given till date. given till date.
16 S.C.A. No.4274 Jayantilal J. Jani 1st Higher pay 2nd Higher pay
of 2015 scale is not scale is not
given till date given till date
14 In the result, all these writ applications are allowed. The
Government Resolution dated 12.06.2012 is hereby ordered to be quashed. The respondents shall treat the petitioners to be in service from 1979 and calculate the effect of the same for the purpose of the first and second higher pay scales accordingly. This exercise shall be undertaken within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of the writ of this order.
15 The respondents are directed not to effect any recovery of any amount paid towards the first higher pay scale from a particular date on the pretext that the petitioners are to be treated in service from 1987.
(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.) chandresh Page 14 of 14 HC-NIC Page 16 of 16 Created On Sat Jan 16 02:17:39 IST 2016 16 of 16