Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/4324/1999 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4324 of 1999
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 ?
=========================================================
JASVANTRAY
PREMSHANKAR RAVAL - Petitioner(s)
Versus
SUPERINTENDING
ENGINEER & 6 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
BALKRISHNA
ACHARYA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR RC JANI for Respondent(s) : 1,
MS LILU K
BHAYA for Respondent(s) : 1,
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 2 -
5.
None for Respondent(s) : 6 -
7.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 03/10/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. This
writ petition has been preferred against the order dated 24.02.1999
passed by the respondents and further to direct the respondents to
grant him higher pay-scale on the basis of 9-18-27 formula and fix
his salary and pension accordingly.
2. The
petitioner joined the services of the respondent-Company on
05.12.1964. On completion of 9 years of continuous service, the
petitioner was given benefit of higher pay-scale as per the
prevailing policy. Thereafter, the petitioner made representation to
the respondent-Company requesting to grant him benefit of next higher
pay-scale on completion of 18 years’ service. However, the said
representation came to be rejected by order dated 24.02.1999. It is
this order which is under challenge in this petition.
3. Heard
learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.
The respondent-Company rejected representation of the petitioner
seeking benefit of higher pay-scale on the ground that the petitioner
had not cleared the qualifying examination or was not possessing the
requisite educational qualification. Learned counsel for the
petitioner was not able to show from the record that the petitioner
fulfilled either of the above two criteria, as described in the
impugned order. The petitioner has claimed that a similarly situated
employee has been granted benefit of higher pay-scale. However, the
said fact has been categorically denied by the respondents in the
reply filed in this petition. Even otherwise, the petitioner cannot
claim benefit on the basis of any illegality which might have been
committed at any point of time. The fact remains that the petitioner
was found ineligible for getting benefit of higher pay-scale as per
the 9-18-27 formula and therefore, the respondents rejected his
representation.
4. In
view of the above, I find no merits in the present petition and
hence, the petition is rejected. Rule is discharged. No order as to
costs.
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.]
Pravin/*
Top