Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/9504/1995 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9504 of 1995
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
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, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
JAYANTILAL
L RAMANI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
MB GANDHI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR JK SHAH AGP for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2.
MR
DA BAMBHANIA for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 16/06/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. By
way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioner has prayed to direct the respondent-authorities to
revise the pay-scale of the post of Mines Supervisor to a proper
level in the cadre.
2. The
facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as a Mining
Clerk in the respondent-Department on 07.11.1969 in the pay-scale of
Rs.175 275. On account of the re-organization of the Department
w.e.f. 01.04.1971, the post of Mining Clerk was designated as Senior
Clerk and their pay-scale was fixed at Rs.200 340. On 22.10.1973
an order came to be passed by which the petitioner was transferred as
Mines Supervisor w.e.f. 01.11.1973 in the pay-scale of Rs.380
560, which was, subsequently, revised to Rs.1320 2040.
3. In
1982 the State Government issued a Circular by which it was clarified
that those persons who were transferred as Mines Supervisor, in
pursuance of the order dated 22.10.1973, were, in fact, transferred
on account of promotion and that it was not a mere transfer. As a
result thereof, the petitioner was given the promotional post of
Mines Supervisor in the scale of Rs.380 560 w.e.f. 01.11.1973.
4. It
is the case of the petitioner that the pay-scale of the post of Mines
Supervisor has not been properly fixed inasmuch as an employee who is
serving on the post of Senior Clerk, which is junior in cadre in
comparison to that of a Mines Supervisor, would receive a much higher
scale of pay over a period of time if such employee does not opt for
promotion to the next post. On account of the aforesaid disparity,
the petitioner has been receiving a much lesser in spite of getting
promotion. The petitioner made representations to the
respondent-authorities requesting to rectify the aforesaid anomaly in
pursuance of an order passed by this Court in an earlier round of
litigation. However, no action was taken. Hence, this petition.
5. Heard
learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents
on record. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Mines
Supervisor from the post of Senior Clerk in the pay-scale of Rs.200
340 on 22.10.1973. As per the G.C.S.R. Rules of 1975, which came into
effect on 01.01.1973, the pay-scale of Senior Clerk was fixed at
Rs.330 560 and that of Mines Supervisor at 380 560.
Accordingly, the pay-scale of the petitioner was fixed at Rs.380
560 w.e.f. 01.11.1973.
6. From
the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent, it
transpires that promotion to the post of Mines Supervisor is governed
by the B.C.S.R. Rules. Those employees who get promotion to the post
of Mines Supervisor from the post of Senior Clerk are not entitled
for select grade available to Senior Clerks. The said structure of
pay-scales has been fixed by the Pay Commission set up by the State
Government. It is a settled law that in matters pertaining to policy
decisions, this Court should not substitute its own opinion. Hence, I
find no merits in the present petition.
7. For
the foregoing reasons, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
No order as to costs.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.]
Pravin/*
Top