Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/30889/2007 5/ 5 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 30889 of 2007
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3090 of 2007
To
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3091 of 2007
=========================================
I
C KOSHTI BINDER & 2 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT THROUGH SECRETARY & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance
:
MR AS SUPEHIA for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 3.
MR.NIRAJ SONI, ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Respondent(s) : 1 - 2.
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
Date
: 26/08/2008
COMMON
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard
learned advocate Mr. A.S. Supehia for the petitioners and Mr. Niraj
Soni, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents.
2. The
present petitions have been filed by the petitioners with the prayer
that the respondents may be directed to grant them pay-scale of
Rs.1200-1800 with effect from 1.1.1992.
3. The
facts of the case briefly stated are that the petitioners are serving
as Binders in different offices under the Director of Agriculture.
They have, on revision of pay, challenged the same by filing a
petition being Special Civil Application No.1472 of 1996 which was
disposed of vide order dated 21.3.2007. It is on the basis of this,
the case of the petitioners was considered again and the impugned
order at Annexure-B dated 5.6.2007 came to be passed which is
challenged in the present petitions on various grounds inter alia
that the respondents have not considered the fact that the Binders
working in the office of the Director of Agriculture and Binders
working under the Directorate of Printing and Stationary are
similarly situated having similar type of work and yet there is a
difference in their pay-scale.
4. Learned
advocate Mr. Supehia referred to the averments in para 15 of the
petition emphasizing that the earlier Pay Commission recommendations
were accepted by the State Government in the year 1975 and 1987.
However, the anomaly has been created, which has been challenged as
stated above. Therefore, Special Civil Application No.1472 of 1996
was filed and the same was disposed of by order dated 21.3.2007
directing the respondent No.1 to consider the case of the
petitioners. It is on the basis of this, the impugned decision has
been taken, which is challenged. Learned advocate Mr. Supehia has
also referred to the averments in paras 16 and 17 and has also
contended that it is not within the purview of the Anomaly Committee
and, therefore, its report is not relevant. It was submitted that if
the work of all the Binders working in two separate departments is
similar then there should not be any discrimination. In support of
this submission learned advocate Mr.Supehia has also referred and
relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in 2003(6) SCC p.250.
5. Though
the submissions have been made with regard to anomaly arising in the
pay-scale, few facts are required to be appreciated. The petitioners
have admittedly filed earlier petition being Special Civil
Application No.1472 of 1996, which was disposed of by order dated
21.3.2007 directing the respondents to consider the case of the
petitioners and accordingly the same has been considered as reflected
in the order dated 5.6.2007, impugned order at Annexure-D, also
referred to in the Annexures and order of the High Court in Special
Civil Application No.1472 of 1996. In light of the observations, the
Sub-Committee, on anomaly, has considered this issue and has
discussed and reflected in a reply, which is also produced at
Annexure-B. It is discussed in detail with regard to the fact that
the recommendations are made by the Pay Commission and even if there
is any anomaly, it is referred to Anomaly Committee and thus after
inviting the necessary suggestions, the decision is arrived at. It
has been specifically mentioned that anomaly is said to have arisen
only in cases where they are exactly identical and, in the facts of
the present case, after examining, the Anomaly Committee has decided
that there is no anomaly. The short point, therefore, is whether this
Court can interfere even after the decision taken pursuant to the
direction given by the High Court in earlier litigation i.e. Special
Civil Application No.1472 of 1996. The scope of judicial review on
such an issue with regard to fixation of pay is very limited in as
much as it was an expert body which is required to consider and even
if there is anomaly the Committee is constituted separately to
consider the anomaly arising and even thereafter when such an Anomaly
Committee do not find any merit in the case, then there is no scope
of interference. Though learned advocate Mr.Supehia for the
petitioner has referred to judgment of the Apex Court reported in
2003(6) SCC p.250, which on the contrary clearly observes as under:-
?S There
can be no denial of the legal position of expert bodies like the Pay
Commission is not ordinarily subject to judicial review obviously
because pay fixation is an exercise requiring going into various
aspects of the posts held in various services and nature of the
duties of the employees. In the present case, however, judicial
review is not sought against the report or recommendations of the Pay
Commission. What the respondent Association has questioned is the
implementation of the resolution of the Government based on the
report and recommendations of the Pay Commission.??
The Apex Court has
clearly observed that the scope of judicial review is limited in such
cases as it is a function of an Expert Body.
6. Therefore, even in
this judgment referred to by learned advocate for the petitioners,
the facts were different as the Association has questioned the
implementation of resolution and not the anomaly in the fixation of
pay. The Apex Court in this very paragraph has stated and observed
that the legal position is very clear that the scope of judicial
review is very limited.
7. In the facts of the
present case, as discussed above once having moved the High Court in
earlier Special Civil Application No.1472 of 1996 and the High Court
having disposed of the matter with a direction to reconsider and
thereafter again when the Committee has considered the issue, it
cannot be stated that now there is any scope left for writ
jurisdiction. The scope of judicial review in such matter has been
expressed time and again. Therefore, in light of the observations
made by the Apex Court, there is no scope for any interference in the
present case. Present petitions, therefore, deserve to be dismissed
in limine.
(Rajesh
H. Shukla, J.)
sudhir
Top