Gujarat High Court
Natvar Dahyabhai Jogadiya vs State Of Gujarat & 2 on 21 July, 2015
Author: J.B.Pardiwala
Bench: J.B.Pardiwala
C/SCA/10606/2015 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10606 of 2015
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10607 of 2015
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10610 of 2015
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10611 of 2015
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10612 of 2015
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10616 of 2015
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10618 of 2015
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10619 of 2015
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10621 of 2015
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10791 of 2015
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10801 of 2015
TO
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10806 of 2015
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10808 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 ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
Page 1 of 7
C/SCA/10606/2015 JUDGMENT
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of
the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of
law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of
India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
NATVAR DAHYABHAI JOGADIYA....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 2....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HARDIK D MUCHHALA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR.ROHAN YAJNIK, AGP in SCA 10606, 10607, 10610, 10611,10612/2015
MS.SHRUTI PATHAK, AGP in SCA 10616, 10618, 10619, 10621/2015
MR.SWAPNESHWAR GAUTAM, AGP in SCA 10791, 10801, 10806 and
10808/2015
MR.RUTVIJ OZA, AGP in SCA 10802, 10803, 10804 and 10805/2015 for the
Respondent(s) No. 1 - 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 21/07/2015
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Since the issue involved in all the captioned writ applications is the same, those were heard analogously, & are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
2. RULE, returnable forthwith. Learned AGP Mr.Rohan Yajnik waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of respondent No.2. The respondent No.3 although served with the notice, Page 2 of 7 C/SCA/10606/2015 JUDGMENT has chosen not to appear in the matter.
3. By this writ applications, the petitioners serving with the respondent No.3 college have prayed for the following reliefs.
"(a) issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued directing the respondents, their agents and servants to make payment of HRA, CLA, and T.A. to the petitioner at the same rate as is given to other similarly situated employees of Shantilal Shah Engineering College, Bhavnagar i.e. at the rate of 20% as admissible as per 6th Pay Commission in pursuant to Judgment dated 11.12.2013 passed in LPA No.616/2003 and allied matters as per Annexure A Colly and Notification dated 03.01.2015Ann.J.
(b) issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued directing the respondents, their agents and servants to calculate and pay the arrears of unpaid HRA, CLA, and T.A. at the rate of 20% for the period from 06.05.2011 to 31.05.2014 and from 01.08.2014 to till date to the petitioner.
(c) Pending admission, final hearing and disposal of this petition be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to make payment of HRA, CLA and T.A. to the petitioner at the same rate i.e. 20% as applicable to the city of Bhavnagar in pursuance to Judgment dated 11.12.2013 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.616/2003 and allied matters.
(d) to grant Adinterim relief in terms of para 9(c).Page 3 of 7
C/SCA/10606/2015 JUDGMENT
(e) to allow this petition with costs.
(f) To pass such other and further orders as may be deemed just and proper by the Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case."
3. It is brought to my notice by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties that the issue is no longer resintegra in view of the judgment delivered by a Division Bench of this Court dated 11.12.2013 in the Letters Patent Appeal No. 616 of 2003. The Division Bench while allowing the Letters Patent Appeal and the connected Special Civil Application, made the following observations.
"6. Taking into consideration the wider repercussions of quashing of GR dated 25.02.2000, this Court restrains itself from pronouncing on the legality and validity of GR dated 25.02.2000. However, it is held that the said GR will not be applicable to the case of the appellantspetitioners for the reasons that, (1) the appellantspetitioners have not shifted their place of work of their own choice, (2) the institute (Shantilal Shah Engineering College) was initially started in the campus of Bhavnagar University which is situated within the Municipal limits of the city of Bhavnagar, (3) at Sidsar, where the college (Shantilal Shah Engineering College) is shifted, there is no residential locality and the college does not provide for residential accommodation to its employees and (4) the authorities themselves are treating transfer from Government Engineering College to Shantilal Shah Engineering College as a local transfer.Page 4 of 7
C/SCA/10606/2015 JUDGMENT 6.1 This Court is of the opinion that GR dated 25.02.2000 cannot be made applicable to the present appellantspetitioners and they should continue to get HRA at the rate at par with the employees who are residing in the Municipal limits of the city of Bhavnagar.
7. In the result, the LPA and the SCAs are allowed. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs."
4. It also appears that following the decision of the Division Bench referred to above, a learned Single Judge of this Court in a bunch of petitions being Special Civil Application No.232 of 2015 and allied matters decided on 08.04.2015 observed as under:
"[7] Having heard learned advocates for both the sides and having carefully examined the material on record, it can be noticed that the petitioner is claiming the benefit of HRA and other benefits as the other similar situated employees of the Shantilal Shah Engineering College, had already moved this Court and in the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of J. N. Patel, President of Sankalan Samiti in Letters Patent Appeal No.616 of 2003, the Court granted benefits to the employees, the Government Resolution dated 25.2.2000 which is according to the Court could not have been applicable to the case of the petitioners, as they continue to get HRA at par with those, who are residing in the Municipal limit of the city of Bhavnagar. The Division Bench of this Court has observed in paragraph Nos.6, 6.1 and 7 as under:
6. Taking into consideration the Page 5 of 7 C/SCA/10606/2015 JUDGMENT wider repercussions of quashing of GR dated 25.02.2000, this Court restrains itself from pronouncing on the legality and validity of GR dated 25.02.2000. However, it is held that the said GR will not be applicable to the case of the appellantspetitioners for the reasons that, (1) the appellants petitioners have not shifted their place of work of their own choice, (2) the institute (Shantilal Shah Engineering College) was initially started in the campus of Bhavnagar University which is situated within the Municipal limits of the city of Bhavnagar, (3) at Sidsar, where the college (Shantilal Shah Engineering College) is shifted, there is no residential locality and the college does not provide for residential accommodation to its employees and (4) the authorities themselves are treating transfer from Government Engineering College to Shantilal Shah Engineering College as a local transfer.
6.2 This Court is of the opinion that GR dated 25.02.2000 cannot be made applicable to the present appellantspetitioners and they should continue to get HRA at the rate at par with the employees who are residing in the Municipal limits of the city of Bhavnagar.
7. In the result, the LPA and the SCAs are allowed. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.
[8] As such decision is, till date not challenged, it goes without saying that the petitions being identically situated, should be availed benefits of such decision, therefore, all these petitions are allowed.
Page 6 of 7C/SCA/10606/2015 JUDGMENT The respondents - authorities are directed to apply, in the case of the petitioners, the decision of LPA Bench granting them HRA at par with those, who are residing within the Municipal limit of Bhavnagar. The respondents are also directed to calculate and pay the unpaid HRA as well as CLA at the rate applicable as per 5th / 6th Pay Commission as made applicable in case of other employees within 12 weeks of this order. These petitions stand disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted."
5. It is also brought to my notice that the judgment delivered by the Division Bench in the Letters Patent Appeal has been confirmed by the Supreme Court. The order has been annexed at Page 80, Annexure:I.
6. In the aforesaid view of the matter, these petitions are allowed. It is declared that the petitioners herein are entitled to HRA, CLA, NPA at the rate of 20% as admissible according to the 6th Pay Commission. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.
(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.) ANKIT Page 7 of 7