Chandrasinh Vaghela vs State Of Gujarat & 2 on 1 February, 2017

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Chandrasinh Vaghela vs State Of Gujarat & 2 on 1 February, 2017

Bench: S.G. Shah

                  C/SCA/4014/2008                                            ORDER



                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
                    SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4014 of 2008
         ============================================================
         ====
               CHANDRASINH VAGHELA, SINCE DECD. THROUGH LEGAL
                                 HEIR....Petitioner(s)
                                       Versus
                      STATE OF GUJARAT & 2....Respondent(s)
         ================================================================
         Appearance:
         DECESED LITIGANT, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
         SUNITA S CHATURVEDI, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1.1
         MS AMITA SHAH, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 3
         RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 3
         ================================================================
          CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.G. SHAH
                            Date : 01/02/2017
                                     ORAL ORDER

[1] On behalf of respondent no.2, one Mr.Vinodbhai Chhanabhai Patel, Executive Engineer has filed a further affidavit on 7.1.2017. With such affidavit, at page no.66, photograph of one page of service book of the petitioner is produced. The bare perusal of such document makes it clear that there is no clarity that in which year such endorsement is made in the service book though in para 4 of the same affidavit, it is disclosed that such endorsement is made pursuant to letter dated 23.12.2016 from the Local Fund. In view of such facts and circumstances, when original service book was asked for scrutiny; it confirms that though date "23.12" is endorsed with the signature of AO(PUU) of DAT Office, the year in which such endorsement is made is not disclosed.

Page 1 of 4

HC-NIC Page 1 of 4 Created On Fri Feb 03 05:00:45 IST 2017 C/SCA/4014/2008 ORDER [2] Therefore, initially, respondents are directed to disclose on oath that in which year such endorsement is made in service book and whether before making any such endorsement whereby basic salary of the petitioner has been revised and reduced w.e.f. 1.2.1996, though he has retired in the year 2006, whether they have extended reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to extend or to submit his case that there is need to revise any such scale with retrospective effect.

[3] Whereas, on scrutiny of original service book, it become clear that at the relevant time, when increment is to be released in the year 1996, there is already an endorsement on page 13 of the service book that pay of the petitioner is fixed at Rs.5250/ only in the pay scale of Rs.45501257000 with effect from date 1.1.1996 without disclosing the date of next increment. Whereas, at present, there is an endorsement that pay of the petitioner is to be fixed at Rs.5,000/ w.e.f. 1.1.1996 in the scale of Rs.45001257000 and next date of increment is 1.2.1996. Therefore, respondents are also directed to explain that how they have reduced the pay scale of the petitioner from Rs.5250/ to Rs.5125/ w.e.f. 1.2.1996 that too without calling the petitioner for explaining his case.

[4] It seems that respondents have committed such blunder when the coordinate bench has, by its Page 2 of 4 HC-NIC Page 2 of 4 Created On Fri Feb 03 05:00:45 IST 2017 C/SCA/4014/2008 ORDER order dated 30.8.2016 called upon the respondents to produce the service book of the petitioner for verifying the fact that whether after implementation of the Revised Pay Scale, 1998 and fixing the pay scale, the verification of the pay scale was done by Local Fund Office or not.

[5] When respondents have stated on oath that such endorsement is made pursuant to communication dated 23.12.2016 from the local fund, though copy of such letter is produced with same affidavit at page 63, it becomes clear that such letter is simply a forwarding letter and not a substantial letter confirming that in which year and how and why they have made such corrections. Therefore, respondents are directed to produce such order of the Local Fund that how and why they have made any corrections in pay scale of the petitioner and why they have made endorsement directly in the service book of the petitioner.

[6] Either of the side shall also produce authentic copy of Gujarat Civil Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 1998 with schedule of salary so as to ascertain that whether benefit of Rule7(1)(A) of the said Rules was properly extended in favour of the petitioner or not.

[7] Original service book shall also be kept handy for perusal of the Court on the next date of hearing.

List on 13.2.2017.

Page 3 of 4

HC-NIC Page 3 of 4 Created On Fri Feb 03 05:00:45 IST 2017 C/SCA/4014/2008 ORDER (S.G. SHAH, J.) * Vatsal Page 4 of 4 HC-NIC Page 4 of 4 Created On Fri Feb 03 05:00:45 IST 2017

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gujarat High Court