Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/2591/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 2591 of 2010
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11394 of 2000
=========================================================
J
P PARMAR & 57 - Appellant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT THROUGH ADDITIONAL CHIEF & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
NV GANDHI for
Appellant(s) : 1 - 58.
MR NJ SHAH, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1 &
3,
None for Respondent(s) : 2
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
Date
: 25/02/2011
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI)
1. Heard
Mr.Sunit Shah, learned counsel assisted by Mr.N.V.Gandhi for the
appellants.
2. Learned
counsel for the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of
the learned Single Judge dated 6.5.2010 by which the learned Single
Judge has illegally rejected the claim made by the appellants for
sanction/approval and grant of all the benefits of revised pay scale
of 5th Pay Commission to all employees of the Gujarat Small
Industries Corporation (‘Corporation’ for short) with effect from
1.1.1996 and the employees were also entitled for arrears along with
interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
3. Learned
counsel submitted that the appellants are working with the aforesaid
Corporation and were treated as employees of the State Government.
They were earlier granted the benefits of 3rd and 4th Pay Commission
which were approved by the State Government, but the 5th Pay
Commission benefits have not been granted to the appellants or the
employees of the Corporation. Learned counsel vehemently argued that
as the learned Single Judge has not dealt with other aspects of the
matter, namely, (i) three installments of interim reliefs were
disbursed pending final outcome of 5th Pay Commission; (ii) surplus
staff cell was opened and employees of respondent No.2 Corporation
were eligible to be included in the said surplus staff cell so as to
get alternate job in Government or Government Boards/Corporations
which was denied; (iii) the appellants were left with no option but
to accept the VRS under the economic duress/pressure or helplessness,
and (iv) the employees of other public sector who were offered VRS
were given arrears of 5th Pay Commission whereas appellants were
denied the said benefit.
4. These
arguments cannot be considered at this stage, as it is admitted by
the appellants that the Corporation – Respondent No.2 is now in
liquidation. Therefore, the relief as asked by the learned counsel
for the appellants cannot be granted at this stage. The controversy
involved in this matter is covered by the decision of the Apex Court
in Officers and Supervisors of I.D.P.L. vs. Chairman and M.D.,
I.D.P.L. and others, AIR 2003 SC 2870. In this view of the matter,
we do not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned
Single Judge. This appeal fails and is dismissed summarily.
(V.M.Sahai,
J.)
Sreeram. (G.B.Shah,
J.)
Top