Gujarat High Court
Dr M M Raval vs Vice Chancellor & 4 on 31 March, 2016
Author: J.B.Pardiwala
Bench: J.B.Pardiwala
C/SCA/1706/2010 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1706 of 2010
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1244 of 2012
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1245 of 2012
TO
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1277 of 2012
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1278 of 2012
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1279 of 2012
TO
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1324 of 2012
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15971 of 2012
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2270 of 2010
TO
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2352 of 2010
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3077 of 2012
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3956 of 2010
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3957 of 2010
TO
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3965 of 2010
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4071 of 2010
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4072 of 2010
TO
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4073 of 2010
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6712 of 2010
Page 1 of 14
HC-NIC Page 1 of 14 Created On Tue Apr 05 01:22:39 IST 2016
C/SCA/1706/2010 ORDER
TO
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6714 of 2010
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9258 of 2012
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14184 of 2013
==========================================================
DR M M RAVAL, AS PRESIDENT OF SAURASHTRA UNIVERSITY
AREA....Petitioner(s)
Versus
VICE CHANCELLOR & 4....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DP JOSHI, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR UTKARSH SHARMA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2 - 3 IN SCA
NO.1706/2010; SCA No.2270/2010 TO SCA NO.2352/2010; SCA
No.4071/2010; SCA No.4072/2010 TO SCA No.4073/2010.
MR HRIDAY BUCH, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 5
RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1 , 4 - 5
MR K.M. ANTANI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2 - 3 IN SCA No.6712/2010
TO SCA NO.6714/2010; SCA No.3956/2010; SCA No.3957/2010 TO SCA
No.3965/2010; SCA No.3077/2012; SCA No.1244/2012.
MR DEEPAK ALORIA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2 - 3 IN SCA
NO.1245/2012 TO SCA No.1277/2012; SCA No.1278/2012; SCA
NO.1279/2012 TO SCA NO.1324/2012; SCA No.1324/2012; SCA
No.9258/2012; SCA No.15971/2012.
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 31/03/2016
COMMON ORAL ORDER
1. Since the issues raised in all the writapplications captioned above, are more or less the same, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
Page 2 of 14HC-NIC Page 2 of 14 Created On Tue Apr 05 01:22:39 IST 2016 C/SCA/1706/2010 ORDER
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. The Special Civil Application No.1706 of 2010 is treated as the lead matter.
3. By this writapplication, the petitioner in his capacity as the President of the Saurashtra University Area Teachers Association, has prayed for the following reliefs: 16(A) To admit and allow this petition;
(B) To declare Resolution dated 26.04.2000 and Circular dated 25.5.2006 null and void and operation and implementation in the case of the present petitioners be permanently stayed.
(C) To issue appropriate writ, order or direction and quash and set aside letter/Executive Instructions dated 4.2.2010 issued by the Accounts Officer, Office of the Commissioner of Higher Education.
(D) During the pendency, hearing and/or final disposal of this petition this no recovery be initiated against the present petitioner as per letter dated 4.2.2010 and the same may be stayed till final disposal of this petition.
(E) To grant any other and further relief/s as may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(F) That the costs of the petition may be provided for;
4. These writapplications came to be filed in the backdrop of the circumstances as under: 4.1 The petitioners are holding the Degree of the "Doctor of Philosophy" and "Master of Philosophy". The University Grants Commission (for short 'The UGC') framed the guidelines and in accordance with same, the State Government passed a resolution dated 07.09.1998 granting the benefits of the "Advance Increment" to the Page 3 of 14 HC-NIC Page 3 of 14 Created On Tue Apr 05 01:22:39 IST 2016 C/SCA/1706/2010 ORDER Lecturers possessing the special qualification of the "Doctor of Philosophy" and/or the "Master of Philosophy".
4.2 According to the U.G.C. guidelines, the Central Government was to provide the assistance towards the additional expenditure to the extent of 80% to the State Government.
4.3 It is the case of the writapplicants that the scheme of "Advance Increment" was nothing but a carrear advancement scheme and the same was to act as an 'incentive' to those Lecturers, who possessed the Degree of "Doctor of Philosophy" and "Master of Philosophy".
4.4 By a Government Resolution dated 26.04.2000, benefit of the "Advance Increment" came to be withdrawn with respect to the employees of various Administrative Departments. Accordingly a Circular came to be issued by the Accounts Officer of the Higher Education Commissioner, State Gujarat, dated 25.05.2006 withdrawing the benefits, which were already extended to the Professors/Readers/ Lecturers serving with the various Universities and/or GrantinAid and Non GrantinAid Colleges. Accordingly, the benefit of the "Advance Increment" came to be stopped from 01.04.2007. Hence, these petitions.
5. Mr. D.P. Joshi, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicants pointed out that in the wake of some developments, which took place during the pendency of these writapplications, there need not to be any adjudication on merits. He pointed out that although the impugned decision was taken by the State Government, yet it never came to be implemented in substance. He clarified that those employees who were on the verge of retirement and were apprehending that their retiral benefits would be withheld on account of this issue, they on their Page 4 of 14 HC-NIC Page 4 of 14 Created On Tue Apr 05 01:22:39 IST 2016 C/SCA/1706/2010 ORDER own volition deposited the requisite amount. He further pointed out that this very issue came up before this Court in a bunch of writapplications being Special Civil Application No.2668 of 2009 and allied matters.
6. A learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 26.08.2009 took the view that the action of the State Government in recovering the amount paid to the respective petitioners, was bad in law. However, it upheld the validity of the Government Resolution dated 26.04.2000 and the circular dated 25.05.2006. In short, all the writapplications were partly allowed. While allowing these writapplications in part, the learned Single Judge observed as under:
3. Special Civil Application Nos.2668 of 2009 to 2681 of 2009 are filed by the Lecturers of Vir Narmad South Gujarat University and Special Civil Application No.28547 of 2007 with Special Civil Application No.28549 of 2007 to Special Civil Application No.28571 of 2007 are filed by the Lecturers of Sardar Patel University, Vallabh Vidhya Nagar. It is the case on behalf of the petitioners that all the petitioners are having the degree of 'Doctor of Philosophy' and 'Master of Philosophy'. That the University Grants Commission (UGC) framed guidelines and, as per the same, the State Government passed Resolution dated 7.9.1998 granting the benefit of "Advance Increment" to the Lecturers having special qualification of 'Doctor of Philosophy' and/or 'Master of Philosophy'. That as per the UGC guidelines, the Central Government provided assistance to the State Government to the extent of 80% of the additional expenditure involved in giving effect to the revision of payscale of specific personnel in University or grantinaid and non grantinaid colleges. It is the case on behalf of the respective petitioners that the aforesaid scheme of "Advance Increment" is nothing but carrier advancement scheme and the same was for the 'incentive' to those Lecturers who are having the degree of 'Doctor of Philosophy' and 'Master of Philosophy'. That the State Government, as per the Resolution dated 26.4.2000 took the decision to withdraw the benefit of "Advance Increment" with respect to the employees of various administrative departments. That thereafter, one circular is issued by Accountant Officer of Higher Education Commissioner, Gujarat State dated 25.5.2006 to withdraw the benefit, which was given to the Professors/ Readers/ Lecturers serving with various Universities and/or grantinaid and non grant inaid colleges and thereafter, the benefit of "Advance Increment" came Page 5 of 14 HC-NIC Page 5 of 14 Created On Tue Apr 05 01:22:39 IST 2016 C/SCA/1706/2010 ORDER to be stopped from 1.4.2007. That the Lecturers of Sardar Patel University preferred Special Civil Application Nos. 28547 of 2007 with Special Civil Application No.28549 of 2007 to Special Civil Application No.28571 of 2007 which came to be admitted by this Court and stay was granted by this Court mainly on the ground that the decisions on the representation was non speaking order. That thereafter, Professors/ Readers/Lecturers of Vir Narmad South Gujarat University have preferred the present Special Civil Application Nos.2668 of 2009 to 2681 of 2009 before this Court.
4. When all these petitions were heard by this Court on 21.7.2009, Ms.Krina Calla, learned AGP submitted that necessary clarification is sought for from the Finance Department whether Government Resolution dated 26.4.2000 will be applicable to the petitioners i.e. Professors/ Readers /Lecturers of the Universities or grantinaid and non grantinaid colleges and it was stated that the instructions are awaited. Therefore, all these petitions were adjourned to 13th August, 2009. Thereafter, all these petitions came to be heard on 13th August, 2009 and it was stated that the Finance Department had already sent its opinion to the concerned Department opining that employees like petitioners i.e.employees of Universities will also be governed by the Government Resolutions dated 26.4.2000 and 25.5.2006 and are not entitled to the "Advance Increment" on the basis of having additional educational qualification. Thereafter, all these petitions were adjourned to 25th August, 2009 so as to enable the State Government / Education Department to produce the decision by way of Resolution on record. When all these petitions were taken up for final hearing today, learned AGP, Ms.Kirna Calla, has produced on record Government Resolution dated 21st August, 2009 issued by Deputy Secretary, Education Department under the order of His Excellence, Governor of Gujarat, which is directed to be taken on record.
5. By the aforesaid Government Resolution dated 21 August, st 2009, a decision has been taken that the Government Resolution dated 26th April, 2000 withdrawing the benefit of "Advance Increment"
would be applicable to all these employees who were getting the benefit of "Advance Increment" pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 7.9.1998 of the Education Department. It appears from the Government Resolution dated 26.4.2000 read with Government Resolution dated 21st August, 2009 that a conscious decision has been taken by the State Government not to pay "Advance Increment" to the employees of having special qualification of 'Doctor of Philosophy' and 'Master of Philosophy' in view of implementation of revision of payscale, etc.
6. At the outset, it is required to be noted that though learned Page 6 of 14 HC-NIC Page 6 of 14 Created On Tue Apr 05 01:22:39 IST 2016 C/SCA/1706/2010 ORDER advocate appearing on behalf of the respective petitioners has been served with the copy of the Government Resolution dated 21st August, 2009, he has chosen not to challenge Government Resolution dated 21st August, 2009. Therefore, Government Resolution dated 21st August, 2009 of the Education Department has not been challenged by the respective petitioners and what is challenged is Government Resolution dated 26.4.2000 withdrawing the benefit of "Advance Increment" on having special qualification of 'Doctor of Philosophy' and 'Master of Philosophy'.
7. Shri D.P.Joshi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of petitioners has submitted that the benefit of "Advance Increment" was given to the Professors/Readers/ Lecturers of the Universities of granted and non granted Institutions. As per the guidelines of the UGC, the same was accepted by the State Government vide Resolution dated 7.9.1998 and therefore, once the State Government has accepted the implementation of the guidelines issued by the UGC, the same cannot be withdrawn by the State Government. It is submitted that in any case when all the respective petitioners have been paid the "Advance Increment" despite the Government Resolution dated 26.4.2000 and neither there was any misrepresentation on the part of petitioners nor any clarification from the Education Department to the effect that the said Government Resolution dated 26.4.2000 would be applicable to the employees/ lecturers like petitioners, there shall not be any recovery of the "Advance Increment" paid to the respective petitioners. It is submitted that as such, for the first time, the Education Department clarified the position that Government Resolution dated 26.4.2000 would be applicable to all the employees who are granted "Advance Increment" pursuant to Government Resolution dated 7.9.1998 of the Education Department by Government Resolution dated 21st August, 2009 only. Therefore, it is requested to quash and set aside the action of the respondents to recover the amount of "Advance Increment" paid to the respective petitioners.
8. Shri D.P.Joshi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respective petitioners has vehemently submitted that even the action of the respondents in treating to recover the amount already paid by way of "Advance Increment" is most arbitrary and illegal and which deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is submitted that even in the case where it was found that some benefits were given by mistake for which, the employees concerned are not found to be responsible and/or there was no misrepresentation on the part of the concerned employees, the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court have held that there cannot be any recovery with respect to the benefits which are granted by mistake.
Page 7 of 14HC-NIC Page 7 of 14 Created On Tue Apr 05 01:22:39 IST 2016 C/SCA/1706/2010 ORDER
9. It is submitted by Shri Joshi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respective petitioners that as such, even in the present case, the "Advance Increments" were paid to the respective petitioners by mistake. It is submitted that as such, a clarification / Government Resolution came to be issued by the Education Department for the first time vide Resolution dated 21st August, 2009 making the Government Resolution dated 26.4.2000 of the Finance Department applicable to the petitioners and other similarly situated employees of the Universities, or grantinaid and non grantin aid colleges. Ttherefore, the action of the respondents in treating to recover the amount paid to the respective petitioners by way of "Advance Increment" to be quashed and set aside.
10. All these petitions are opposed by Ms.Krina Calla, learned AGP, by submitting that the conscious decision has been taken by the State Government to stop / withdraw the "Advance Increment" which was aid to the employees on having special qualification. It is submitted that earlier, the decision was taken considering the guidelines issued by the UGC. However, subsequently, on revision of payscale, etc., a policy decision has been taken by the State Government to withdraw the benefit of "Advance Increment". It is submitted that the respective petitioners cannot claim, as a matter of right, the benefit of "Advance Increment". It is submitted that even 80% of the additional burden was paid by the Central Government upto the year 2000 only and thereafter, the entire burden was upon the State Government and even considering the revision of payscale, etc., a policy decision has been taken by the State Government to stop / withdraw the benefit of "Advance Increment". With respect to the recovery of "Advance Increment" paid to the respective petitioners, it is submitted that as such, inspite of the decision / Government Resolution dated 26.4.2000 and Circular dated 25.5.2006, respective petitioners were paid the "Advance Increment" and therefore, the action of the respondents to recover the "Advance Increment" already paid to the respective petitioners is just and proper.
11. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties.
12. All the respective petitioners, who are Professors/Readers/ Lecturers working with the respective Universities were granted benefit of "Advance Increment" having special qualifications of 'Doctor of Philosophy' and 'Master of Philosophy' pursuant to the Government Resolution of Education Department dated 7.9.1998. Along with petitioners, other employees of the administrative staff were also granted the benefit of "Advance Increment". It appears that by Government Resolution dated 26.4.2000, a policy decision was taken by the State Government withdrawing the benefit of "Advance Page 8 of 14 HC-NIC Page 8 of 14 Created On Tue Apr 05 01:22:39 IST 2016 C/SCA/1706/2010 ORDER Increment" to the employees having higher qualification on implementation of revision of payscale, etc., however, the same was general in nature. There was no clarification whether said Government Resolution dated 26.4.2000 would be applicable to the Professors/ Readers/ Lecturers of the Universities or grantinaid or non grantinaid colleges or not. All the respective petitioners continued to be paid "Advance Increment". That thereafter, in the year 2006, a Circular came to be issued by the Account Officer of Commissioner of Higher Education to strictly implement the Government Resolution dated 26.4.2000. It appears that even the said Government Resolution / Circular was general in nature. It appears that Education Department approached the Finance Department for clarification whether the Government Resolution dated 26.4.2000 would be applicable to the Employees/ Professors/ Lecturers who are getting the "Advance Increment" pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 7.9.1998 or not. Therefore, for the first time, the Education Department vide Resolution dated 21.8.2009 clarified and took the decision that the Government Resolution dated 26.4.2000 of the Finance Department would be applicable to all, who are getting the "Advance Increment" pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 7.9.1998 of the Education Department i.e. all the attached staff /employees of Universities, Government Colleges and Non Government granted colleges. Now, considering Government Resolution dated 26.4.2000 read with Government Resolution dated 21.8.2009, it appears that the policy decision has been taken by the State Government to withdraw the benefit of "Advance Increment"
which was being paid to the employees having special or higher qualification for implementation of the revision of payscale, etc.
13. Shri Joshi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners is not in a position to dispute that it is policy decision of the State Government whether to grant the benefit of "Advance Increment" or not. Even otherwise, it appears that, if the concerned Authority / State Government takes its own policy decision, looking to the financial implications and other surrounding circumstances and unless and until the action is so unconstitutional and so arbitrary, the Court would not like to interfere with such a policy decision. It appears that a conscious decision has been taken by the State Government to withdraw the benefit of "Advance Increment" on implementation of the revision of payscale, etc.
14. Under the circumstances, challenge to the Government Resolution dated 26.4.2000 fails. As stated above, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has not challenged the Government Resolution dated 21.8.2009 and therefore, there is no challenge of Government Resolution dated 21.8.2009 by the respective petitioners. Even otherwise, as such, the Government Resolution dated Page 9 of 14 HC-NIC Page 9 of 14 Created On Tue Apr 05 01:22:39 IST 2016 C/SCA/1706/2010 ORDER 21.8.2009 is clarificatory in nature clarifying that Government Resolution dated 26.4.2000 would be applicable to all the employees, who get the benefit of "Advance Increment" as per the Government Resolution dated 7.9.1998 of the Education Department. Under the circumstances, challenge to the Government Resolutions withdrawing the benefit of "Advance Increment" fails.
15. Now so far as challenge to the action of the respondents to recover the "Advance Increment" already paid withdrawing the Government Resolution dated 26.4.2000 is concerned ,there is a substance in challenging the same. As stated above, as such, till 21.8.2009, there was no clarification by the Education Department and/or even Finance Department as to whether the Government Resolution dated 26.4.2000 would be applicable to all the attached staff of the Universities or granted colleges or nongranted colleges, who are granted the benefit of "Advance Increment" pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 7.9.1998 of the Education Department. For the first time, the same came to be clarified by the Resolution dated 21.8.2009. Ofcourse, by Circular dated 25.5.2006, the payment of "Advance Increment" was objected and same came to be stopped from 2007. Nothing is on record and even, it is not the case of concerned respondents that respective petitioners are in any way responsible for payment of "Advance Increment" and/or there was misrepresentation on the part of respective petitioners for payment of "Advance Increment".
16. In view of the above, the action of the respondents to recover the payment of "Advance Increment" already paid, cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed and set aside and to that extent the respective petitions are to be allowed.
17. For the reasons stated herein above, all the petitions succeed in part. All the petitions challenging the action of the respondents and challenging the Government Resolution dated 26.4.2000 and Circular dated 25.5.2006, are hereby dismissed. All the petitions challenging the action of the respondents to recover the amount of "Advance Increment" already paid to the respective petitioners succeed. Action of the respondents to recover the amount of "Advance Increment" already paid to the respective petitioners is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent in each of the petitions with respect to the recovery part and Rule is discharged so far as the challenge to withdrawal of benefit of "Advance Increment" is concerned. In the fact and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
7. It appears that the State of Gujarat being dissatisfied with the Page 10 of 14 HC-NIC Page 10 of 14 Created On Tue Apr 05 01:22:39 IST 2016 C/SCA/1706/2010 ORDER judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge preferred a Letters Patent Appeal (Stamp Number) No.1365 of 2013 alongwith the Civil Application for condonation of delay as there was a delay of 1453 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal.
8. The Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 14.03.2014 was pleased to reject the application for condonation of delay. Thus, the Appeal was not adjudicated on merits. While rejecting the delay condonation application, the Division Bench observed as under:
1. By way of this application, the appellants have prayed to condone the delay occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal, which is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge, Dated : 26.08.2009, passed in SCA No. 2668 of 2009 and allied matters, whereby, the learned Single Judge quashed and set aside the action of the appellant of seeking recovery of Advance Increment already paid to the respondents.
2. We have heard Mr. Sharma, learned AGP, for the applicants appellants. The grounds urged for condoning the gross delay of 1453 days in filing the appeal, more particularly, Paras7 and 8 thereof read as under;
7. Amidst these processes, determination of clear policy on approval of advance increments for Ph.D. Degree was also under careful consideration. A delegation of academicians submitted a letter of collective representation dated 1509.2012 requesting to cancel the recovery of advance increments. Dept. Education called upon meeting wide letter dated 20092012 of Accounts Officers to discuss the state policy on approval of advance increments to Ph.D. Degree holders under revised pay rules. A delegation of academicians were allowed representation during a meeting at Sardar Patel Institute of Public Administration (SPIPA) dated 28092012 on allowing increments for Ph.D.. As per Sixth Pay Commission. These representations were forwarded to the Dept. Eduction vide letter 06092012. A representation dated 1509 2012 and letters dated 20092012 and 06122012 are attached herewith as ANNEXURE AI (COLLY.).
8. Thereafter, the office of the appellants herein were under constant correspondence on implementation of 6th pay policy revised by the University Grants Commission especially with regard to the cutoff applicable for the approval of the advance increments to the Ph.D. Degree holder and the issue of recovery Page 11 of 14 HC-NIC Page 11 of 14 Created On Tue Apr 05 01:22:39 IST 2016 C/SCA/1706/2010 ORDER of such increments already paid. With a view to make a well thought decision in the policy for approving these increments, diligent care was taken that necessitate additional time. After a long but thoughtful consideration, the department finally decided to file an appeal at the earliest. The Education Department approved the draft of appeal and instructed the Commissioner of Higher Education to file an appeal before this Honble Court at its earliest vide letter dated 07082013, attached herewith as ANNEXURE BII. The office of the Higher Education despite due diligence attempts could not trace out within the office a certified copy of the judgment of the single judge issued earlier before two years and therefore reapplied for a fresh certified copy in the date on 03093013 which was received on 06092013.
3. The foregoing paragraphs show the lethargic attitude with which such serious matters are dealt with by the office of the applicantsState Government, from a perusal of the grounds urged in the application for condonation of delay, we do not see anything, which would explain much less justify such a gross delay. Therefore, the recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF U.P. THR. EXE. ENGINEER & ANR. VS.
AMAR NATH YADAV, JT 2014 (1) SC 494, will squarely apply to the facts of the case on hand, the reason being, the advance increments were given to the respondents even much before filing of the petition in the year 2009, whereas, the opinion of the Joint Secretary was sought vide letter dated 06.09.2013 and it is pursuant to that a letter dated 07.08.2013 was written by the Education Department to the Commissioner of Higher Eduction to file an appeal and that is how the State Machinery wokeup from its slumber. Except, denying the benefits of order dated 26.08.2009, whereby, the recovery was quashed and the respondents were granted the advance increments due to them, as per their respective qualifications, the State did not do anything for long time. If, the State really wanted to seriously challenge the order of the learned Single Judge, they should have and in fact, could have done so immediately without sending the file from one department to other, which is not the case. The Apex Court in the above referred case strongly deprecated the reason for delay attributed to moving of file from one department / officer to another and refused to condone the delay of 481 days. In the instant case, the delay is gross, i.e. of 1453 days, which is attempted to be explained. We are, hence, unable to persuade ourselves to accept the submission of the learned AGP, Mr. Sharma, that the rejection of this LPA at the threshold without condoning the delay would encourage such litigations and the State exchequer would be unnecessarily burdened. The State if really been worried about its exchequer, it could have taken Page 12 of 14 HC-NIC Page 12 of 14 Created On Tue Apr 05 01:22:39 IST 2016 C/SCA/1706/2010 ORDER actions against the erring officers, on account of whose lackadaisical and indifferent attitude, the gross delay of 1453 days occurred.
4. In view of the above, no purpose would be served by condoning the delay. Hence, the civil application as well as the LPA booth stand DISMISSED. No order as to costs.
9. It appears that the State Government accepted the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge referred to above and thought fit to issue a fresh Resolution dated 12.09.2014, which has been placed on record today by Mr. Joshi.
10. The Resolution issued by the State Government in its Education Department, dated 12.09.2014 states that there shall be no recovery of the amount paid to the employees by way of "Advance Increment". It further states that the liability of a particular officer responsible for creating the confusion shall be fixed and he be proceeded accordingly. The Government Resolution also takes care about the qualifications and is made applicable to all the Universities as well as all the Colleges across the State of Gujarat. The short point now which needs to be decided is about those persons who on their own volition deposited the requisite amount apprehending that it would come in their way so far as their retiral benefits were concerned.
11. Mr. D.G. Chauhan, the learned counsel appearing for the University submitted that this Court need not to pass an order directing the University to refund the amount which has already been paid by the respective employees on their own volition.
12. I am of the view and more particularly, having regard to the observations made by the learned Single Judge in Paras14 and 15 referred to above, the amount should be refunded to the respective employees. The mere act on their part to deposit the money on their Page 13 of 14 HC-NIC Page 13 of 14 Created On Tue Apr 05 01:22:39 IST 2016 C/SCA/1706/2010 ORDER own volition out of fear and that too, without any fault on their part, should not come on their way so far as the refund of the requisite amount is concerned. A list of all those employees be prepared, who had voluntarily deposited the amount and the same be paid to them within period of two months from today.
It is further clarified that those employees, whose promotional avenues have been hampered on account of this litigation, shall now be reconsidered and appropriate decision in that regard be taken in accordance with law at the earliest.
13. With the above observation, all these writapplications are disposed of. Direct service is permitted.
(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.) aruna Page 14 of 14 HC-NIC Page 14 of 14 Created On Tue Apr 05 01:22:39 IST 2016