Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/8940/1998 2/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8940 of 1998
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 ?
=============================================================
MUKUNDBHAI
BHAGWANDAS RAMI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
AHMEDABAD
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIOTHROUGH MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER & 2 -
Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
RG CHHARA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR RM CHHAYA for Respondent(s) : 1,
RULE
SERVED for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 27/04/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
By
way of present petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for
striking down the unequal pay-scales of Pumpman working in all
departments under respondent No.1 and directing the respondent No.1
to pay petitioner the pay-scale of Rs.1150-1500 instead of pay-scale
of Rs.800-1150 as well as directing the respondent No.1 to pay
difference of salary with retrospective effect for the period from
1988 onwards to the petitioner.
It
is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as
Pumpman in the respondent-Corporation on pay-scale of Rs.800-1150 in
pursuance of the compromise arrived at between the parties i.e.
Union and Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation in Special Civil
Application No.5199 of 1986. On 11th May 1988, the
respondent No.1-Corporation issued appointment order to the
petitioner as a Pumpman in the pay-scale of Rs.800-1150.
Thereafter, on 29th November 1996, the
respondent-Corporation published advertisement for the recruitment
to the post of Pumpman in the pay-scale of Rs.1150-1500. On 03rd
December 1996, the petitioner applied to the respondent No.1 asking
the pay-scale of Rs.1150-1500 as a Pumpman. Though the other
similarly situated employees were given the pay-scale of
Rs.1150-1500, the petitioner has not been granted the same. Hence,
the present petition.
During
the course of hearing, Mr.R.M. Chhaya, learned advocate for the
respondent No.1, has submitted that this Court has disposed of an
identical petition i.e. Special Civil Application No.8946 of 1998
vide order dated 07th April 2010, which deals with the
similar facts and the issue raised in the said petition are
identical. Hence, the present petition may be disposed of
accordingly.
It
would be beneficial to reproduce the said order dated 07th
April 2010 passed in Special Civil Application No.8946 of 1998 inter
alia as under :
2.0
The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as
Pumpman in the Light Department in Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation on
pay scale of Rs.800-1150 in pursuance of compromise arrived in
Special Civil Application No. 5199 of 1986 between Union and AMC. On
11.05.1988, respondent No.1- Corporation gave appointment order to
the petitioner as a Pumpman in the pay scale of Rs. 800-1150. On
19.11.1996, respondent No. 1- Corporation gave advertisement in the
daily newspaper ‘Gujarat Samachar’ for the recruitment of Pumpman in
the pay scale of Rs. 1150-1500. On 03.12.1996, the petitioner applied
to respondent No. 1 asking pay scale of Rs. 1150-1500 as a Pumpman.
The other similarly situated employees were given pay scale of Rs.
1150-1500 where there is discrimination against the petitioner.
Hence, this petition.
3.0
As a result of hearing and perusal of the record and submission made
by learned advocate for the respondent that the petitioner was paid
the pay scale by consent terms. It is also stated that while merging
the Gramp Panchayat in the Corporation the petitioner was employed in
the Gram Panchayat. In that view of the matter, no further order is
required to be passed in this petition. The petition stands disposed
of accordingly. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Interim
relief, if any, stands vacated.
In
view of aforesaid, when the issue involved in the present petition
has already been decided by this Court by way of above cited
decision, in light of the same the present petition is required to
be disposed of and
the same is disposed of accordingly. As per the statement made by
the learned advocate for the petitioner respondent No.1, the
petitioner be paid the pay-scale as per the consent terms. The
parties to abide by the above cited decision. Rule is discharged
with no order as to costs. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.
(K.S.
Jhaveri, J)
Aakar
Top