Gujarat High Court High Court

C.S vs Jamnagar on 26 August, 2010

Gujarat High Court
C.S vs Jamnagar on 26 August, 2010
Author: R.M.Doshit,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/16784/2004	 2/ 4	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 16784 of 2004
 

 
 
==============================================================

 

C.S.
PANDIYAN - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

JAMNAGAR
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & 1 - Respondent(s)
 

==============================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
KISHOR M PAUL for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 
MR AR THACKER for Respondent(s) :
1, 
=====================================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 10/10/2005 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

Learned
advocate Mr.Paul has filed sick note. This petition is pending
admission hearing since February, 2005. Inspite of the completed
pleadings the petition is not heard because Mr.Paul has been filing
sick notes. On 4th October, 2005 this Court had made order
as under :

?SLearned advocate
Mr.Paul has filed sick-note. S.O. to 10th October, 2005.
The petition is pending admission hearing for almost a year.
Hence-forth, there shall not be further adjournment either on the
ground of sick-note or leave note or for want of presence of either
of the learned advocate.??

Nevertheless, today Mr.Paul
has filed sick note. The matter should proceed hearing today. Heard
the learned advocate Mr.Thacker.

The petitioner is a
Driver-cum-Pump Operator employed by the respondent ? Jamnagar
Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as, ?Sthe
Corporation??). It is the grievance of the petitioner that
though he has been appointed as Driver-cum-Pump Operator he has been
assigned the duty of a Mechanic and has been called to function as a
Mechanic. The petitioner has thus been serving as a Mechanic for over
a period of ten years. Nevertheless, the petitioner has been paid the
salary of a Driver-cum-Pump Operator. It is the demand of the
petitioner that since he has been performing the duties of a Mechanic
he should be paid the salaries as a Mechanic and not as a
Driver-cum-Pump Operator. According to the petitioner prior to 1st
April, 1996 the prevalent pay-scales for Driver-cum-Pump Operator and
for Mechanic in the Fire Department of the Corporation were
Rs.950-1500 and Rs.1200-2040 respectively. Since 1st
April, 1996 the said scales have been revised to that of Rs.3050-4590
and Rs.4000-6000 respectively.

The petition is contested
by the Corporation. Mr.Thacker has submitted that it is not in
dispute that by order dated 7th July, 1994 the petitioner,
then a Pump Operator, was promoted and posted as Driver-cum-Pump
Operator in then prevailing pay scale of Rs.950-1500. He has
submitted that it is also not in dispute that the petitioner has been
assigned duties of a Mechanic and has been serving as a Mechanic in
the Fire Department as alleged. He has, however, submitted that it is
not true that the pay scale of a Mechanic is higher than that of a
Driver-cum-Pump Operator. He has submitted that the Driver-cum-Pump
Operators and the Mechanics in the Fire Department were placed in the
common pay scale of Rs.950-1500 which has since been revised to
Rs.3050-4590. He has submitted that the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040 was
assigned to the post of Head Mechanic and has since been revised to
Rs.4000-6000. He has submitted that the petitioner had never been
assigned the duties of a Head Mechanic nor was he called upon to
function as Head Mechanic. The petitioner’s claim for higher salary
of Rs.1200-2040 (prevalent prior to 1st April, 1996) is
misconceived and requires to be rejected.

The petitioner has produced
a copy of the pay scale prevalent in the Corporation and settled
before the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot in Reference IT No.227/1987.
According to the said settlement several posts in the Fire Department
including the posts of Driver-cum-Pump Operator and Mechanic had been
grouped under a common pay scale of Rs.950-1500 under Item No.14.
Whereas, the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040 was sanctioned under Item
No.11 for several posts including the post of Senior Clerk, Head
Mechanic, Vehicle Controller, etc. Thus, the claim of the petitioner
that the post of Mechanic shall fetch higher pay scale is ex-facie
false. The claim of the petitioner is totally misconceived and devoid
of any merit.

In above view of the matter
the petition is summarily rejected. Notice is discharged.

(
Ms. R.M.Doshit, J. )

/moin

   

Top