Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/11989/1994 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11989 of 1994
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 ?
=========================================================
A
M BRAHMABHATT - Petitioner(s)
Versus
INDIAN
OIL CORPN. LTD. & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
JD AJMERA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MRS MAUNA M BHATT for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 11/05/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. By
way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs;
(a) Be pleased to
admit this petition.
(b) Be pleased to quash
and set aside the action of the respondent-Corporation in not
removing the anomaly in the basic pay of the petitioner and not
fixing the basic pay of the petitioner higher than his juniors, by
issuing a writ of mandamus and / or any other appropriate writ,
direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(c) Be pleased to direct
the respondent-Corporation to suitably adjust the basic pay of the
petitioner by adding an increment in the basic pay and by giving
proper stepping up, by issuing a writ of mandamus and / or any other
appropriate writ, direction or order under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
(d) Be pleased to direct
the respondent-Corporation to give the aforesaid benefit of increase
in the basic pay from the date on which his junior started drawing
higher basic pay, by issuing a writ of mandamus and / or any other
appropriate writ, direction or order under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
(e) & (f) …….
2. The facts in brief are
that the petitioner was appointed as an Office Assistant in
respondent-Corporation in the year 1963. In pursuance of the Circular
dated 16.08.1991 issued by the respondent revising the salaries of
the employees of the respondent-Corporation, the pay-scale of the
petitioner was revised to Rs.4600-6790 w.e.f. 01.01.1987.
3. It is the case of the
petitioner that while revising his pay-scale, injustice has been done
to him by the respondent-Corporation inasmuch as an employee junior
to him has been granted more benefits than him. The petitioner made
representation to the respondent-Corporation against the said pay
anomaly. However, the same was not considered. Hence, this petition.
4. Heard learned counsel for
the respective parties. It appears from the record that the case of
the petitioner is not similar to that of the co-employee, B.G. Patel
inasmuch as the said employee was given two promotional increments in
the revised scale with higher incremental benefits. Moreover, the
petitioner has also not disclosed the fact regarding personal pay
drawn by him. Both the petitioner and said B.G. Patel, on becoming
Manager, were drawing equal basic pay w.e.f. 08.08.1991. Therefore, I
do not find anything on record from which it could be inferred that
injustice has been done to the petitioner. Apart from that it is open
to the petitioner to claim reversion, particularly, when he has
enjoyed the promotional post for a considerable long period.
5. In view of the above, the
petition, being devoid of any merits, is rejected. Rule is
discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.
[K.S.JHAVERI, J.]
Pravin/*
Top