Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/10506/2002 12/ 12 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10506 of 2002
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10466 of 2002
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12577 of 2003
with
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION NO 11175 OF 2002
WITH
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION NO 10503 OF 2002
=====================================================
MAGANBHAI
DAYARAM VAMJA & 6 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=====================================================
Appearance
:
MS TEJAL K SHAH for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 7.
Mr. SK Shah for petitioners.
Mr.
Umang Oza, AGP for State Authority.
MR DC DAVE for Panchayat
Authority.
Mr.
HS Munshaw for Panchayat Authority.
=====================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD
Date
: 05/10/2007
ORAL
ORDER
Heard
learned Advocate Ms. Tejal K. Shah and Mr. SK Shah for the
petitioners; Mr. Oza, learned AGP as well as Mr. Munshaw for the
Panchayat Authority in these petitions.
As
per the case of the petitioners herein, State of Gujarat was running
various centres under a scheme known as Sarvodaya Scheme in the
state for rendering various social services for which the Government
was paying 100 per cent grant for running the said centres and the
appointment of the staff was made as per rules and approved by the
Government. Petitioners were appointed on different posts as
mentioned in Annexure A to respective petitions. Development
Commissioner who was supervising the scheme had fixed the basic pay
of the petitioners. Thereafter, by resolution dated 18.7.1980, the
Government decided to abolish the Sarvodaya Scheme and on 30.7.1981,
a resolution was passed. Para 5 thereof was providing that the full
time employees under the sarvodaya centres who had completed one
year of services under the scheme as on 31.3.1981 will be absorved
in ex cadre posts under the panchayat in their existing pay scale
and the existing salaries and allowances w.e.f. 1.9.1981. Ex cadre
employees of the scheme representing to absorb in regular cadre
under the panchayat filed SCA No. 4246 of 1983 and during the
pendency of the petition, by letter dated 16.12.1986, Government had
taken decision to absorb the ex cadre employees in the panchayat
service and to give benefit given to panchayat employees, therefore,
said petition was withdrawn. Panchayat Service Selection Board was
thereafter instructed by the State Government that until question of
absorption of employees in regular panchayat service is not solved,
no further vacancies should be filled up by letter dated 18.3.1987.
But thereafter, Government passed resolution dated 15.12.1987 and
absorbed petitioners in the scale of Rs.950-1500 (pre revised pay
scale of Rs.260-400) i.e. In the lower pay scale. It is pertinent to
note that after this resolution, Government gave equal pay scales to
employees of District Panchayat Bhavnagar Panchmahals, Jamnagar and
Amreli but thereafter by order dated 22.9.1988 and 15.12.88, DDO
concerned instructed to implement resolution dated 15.12.87, the
district employees filed SCA NO. 8066 of 1988 and same is pending
before this court as submitted by petitioners.
In
view of the resolution dated 15.12.87 absorbing petitioners in a
lower scale and also asked them to give undertaking prescribed by
the Government as per the resolution dated 15.12.87, petitioners
gave undertaking with objction but were given consent for being
absorbed in the scale of Rs.950-1500 but the said undertakings were
given under protest and without prejudice to their rights and
contentions to challenge the decision. As per the case of
petitioner, such decision of absorbing petitioners in the pay scale
of Rs.1200-2040 (pre revised pay scale of Rs.330-560 and not
absorbing them in equivalent posts carrying pay scale of
Rs.1400-2600 is illegal arbitrary and illegal Based upon these
facts, petitioners have filed these petitions before this Court.
The
employee of this Yojna challenged the decision of Government before
this Hon’ble Court. As a result of intervention of this Hon’ble
Court, a compromise was reached between the Government and it was
decided to absorb these employees in Government Panchayat services.
Thereafter, employees were absorbed as Ex-cadre employees in
Panchayat services in temporary basis with existing pay scale and
allowances which they were drawing when they were working under the
said Yojna without any future benefits like promotion, increments
and other retiral benefits.
Thereafter,
the employees agitated against such conditions imposed by the
Government. They made representation to the Government which was
considered favourably and these employees were treated as fresh
recruits in Panchayat service w.e.f. 1st April 1987. As
per the facts of these petitions, some of the petitioners have
retired from service whereas some are in service, have to retire
afterwards. Learned advocate Ms. Shah submitted that identical facts
has been examined by this Court in SCA 14642 of 2003 (Coram :
Hon’ble Mr. Akshay H. Mehata, J.) where petitioners were retired
from service, in this two matters difference is only that
petitioners are working with the respondent likely to retire after
some time, except that, there is no other difference and factual
aspect between earlier matter and present petitions.
Learned
advocate Ms. Shah submitted that decision given by this Court as
referred above is not challenged by the State Government and
decision to that effect has been taken by the respondent.
Learned
advocate Ms. Shah relied upon the decisions of this Court in
identical facts in SCA 6992/2002, 6996 of 2002, 8680 of 2002, 8972
of 2002, and 8974 of 2002 dated 9/3/2006 (Coram : Hon’ble Mr.
Justice Akil Qureshi, J) this group of petition has been also
decided by this Court which having identical facts and therefore,
learned advocate Ms. Shah submitted that some suitable direction may
be issued to the respondent to decide their claim or grievance on
the basis of aforesaid two decisions within some reasonable time.
In
view of the aforesaid factual aspect as well as the decisions
rendered by this Court on the basis of identical facts, it is
directed to the respondent to consider the grievance of the
petitioner, and to grant consequential service benefits/pensionary
benefit from the date of initial appointment and to fix their salary
on the basis of their original respective pay scale as decided by
this Court while considering the decisions of this Court as referred
above and pass appropriate reasoned order within a period of two
months from the date of receiving the copy of the said order and
communicate the decision to the petitioner. Meaning thereby, in SCA
No. 10506 of 2002, as per Annexure-A, original pay scale of the
petitioners therein is Rs.300-560, so, benefits have to be given to
them on that basis as per the decisions of this court referred to
above and in the same manner, benefits have to be given to the
petitioners in other petitions on the basis of their respective
original pay scales.
It
is the law settled by the Hon’ble apex court that once, identical
matter has been examined by the Court between the parties in respect
of the questions raised in the proceedings, then, subsequently such
another similarly situated employee is not required to file separate
proceedings for getting similar benefits as directed in earlier case
by the Court, meaning thereby, once identical issue has been decided
by the court and if the other employee who is similarly situated to
the earlier petitioner, then, he should not have to file separate
proceedings for getting similar benefits. These principles have been
laid down by the apex court in following two decisions:
(1) KT
Veerappa & Ors. V/s. State of Karnataka reported in 2006(4)
SCALE page 293.
(2) State
of Karnataka & Ors. Versus C. Lalitha reported in 2006(1)
Supreme 640.
In
case of KT Veerappa & Ors. V/s. State of Karnataka
reported in 2006(4) SCALE page 293, the apex court
observed as under in para 16 of the judgment :
?S16.
The defence of the State Government that as the appellants were not
the petitioners in the writ petition filed by 23 employees of the
respondent – University to whom the benefit of revised pay scales
was granted by the Court, the appellants are estopped from raising
their claim of revised pay scales in the year 1992-94, is wholly
unjustified, patently irrational, arbitrary and discriminatory. As
noticed in the earlier part of this judgment, revised pay scales
were given to those 23 employees in the year 1991 when the contempt
proceedings were initiated against the Vice- Chancellor and the
Registrar of the University of Mysore. The benefits having been
given to 23 employees of the University in compliance with the
decision dated 21/6/1989 recorded by the learned Single Judge in
W.P. Nos. 21487-21506/1982, it was expected that without resorting
to any of the methods the other employees identically placed,
including the appellants, would have been given the same benefits,
which would have avoided not only unnecessary litigation but also
the movement of files and papers which only waste public time.??
In
case of State of Karnataka & Ors. Versus C. Lalitha
reported in 2006(1) Supreme 640, the apex court
observed as under :
?SImportant
points: Service jurisprudence evolved from time to time postulates
that all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly.
Only because one person has approached the Court that would not mean
that persons similarly situated should be treated as differently.??
Therefore,
case of the petitioners herein is covered by the decisions referred
to by learned Advocate Ms. Shah and, therefore, being similarly
situated, petitioner is entitled for such relief.
Therefore,
it is open for the petitioner, to supply the copy of petition to the
respondent within a period of one month from the date of receiving
the copy of this order.
As
and when respondent receive the copy of petition, it is directed to
the respondent to examine the grievance of the petitioner and
consider the same in light of the aforesaid two decisions delivered
by this Court and pass appropriate reasoned order in accordance with
law within a period of two months and communicate the decision
immediately to the petitioners.
It
is also directed to the respondent, to consider as petitioners are
entitled the benefit of recommendation made by 4th and
5th Pay Commission.
In
view of the above observation and direction, present petitions are
disposed of. Rule in each petition is made absolute in terms
indicated hereinabove with no order as to costs.
Direct
service is permitted.
However,
in case, if, ultimate decision of the respondent – authority is
against the petitioner, it is open for the petitioner to challenge
the same before appropriate forum in accordance with law.
[H.K.
RATHOD, J.]
Vyas
Top