Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/7062/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7062 of 2011
======================================
R
G ULAVARANA - Petitioner(s)
Versus
GUJARAT
MARITIME BOARD THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & & 1 -
Respondent(s)
======================================
Appearance :
MR
VAIBHAV A VYAS for Petitioner(s) : 1,
MRHAMESHCNAIDU for
Respondent(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 2,
NOTICE
SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) :
2,
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 06/09/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1 This
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by
the petitioner challenging the order dated 18th February
2011 and the consequential order date 19th April 2011.
2 The
facts of the case are that, initially, by order dated 28th
August 2002, punishment of compulsory retirement from service was
imposed upon the petitioner. In departmental appeal, by order dated
25th March 2003, the punishment of compulsory retirement
from service was substituted by imposing punishment of reduction to a
lower post and stage i.e. from the pay-scale of 4500-7000 on the post
of Master to the pay-scale of Rs.4000-6000 on the post of Sarang. In
spite of the above order dated 25th March 2003 passed by
the Appellate Authority, the Subordinate Officer inadvertently fixed
the pay of the petitioner at Rs.4800/- in the pay-scale of
Rs.4000-6000, which is sought to be corrected by order dated 18th
February 2011 and that is the subject matter of challenge in the
present petition.
3 Learned
counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Rule 15 of the
Gujarat Civil Services (Pay) Rules, 2002 [for short, ‘the Rules’] and
submitted that, in the matter where fixation of pay on reversion from
higher to lower post, pay in the lower post shall be fixed at the
stage of the time scale of the lower post on which he would have
drawn pay but for his appointment to the higher post as admissible.
It is also submitted that no opportunity is given to the petitioner
while passing the order dated 18th February 201 and,
therefore, the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and set aside.
4 Learned
counsel for the respondents would submit that the order impugned is
simply a correction of earlier administrative error which has crept
in while fixing the pay-scale of the petitioner on the lower post of
Sarang. Pursuant to substitution of penalty of compulsory retirement
with reduction to lower stage and in spite of the order passed by the
Appellate Authority to fix the pay-scale of the petitioner in the
pay-scale of Rs.4000-6000 for the post of Sarang in the lower
pay-scale, the Subordinate Officer has wrongly fixed the pay-scale of
the petitioner at Rs.4800/- which is sought to be corrected by the
impugned order and, hence, no interference is called for.
5. Rule
15 of the Rules reads as under:
“Fixation
of pay on reversion from higher to lower post: The provisions of rule
-13 do not apply in the case of a Government employee appointed from
a higher post to a lower post due to reduction of establishment or
reverting to a lower post on termination of his officiating promotion
to a higher post. Where a Government employee is reverted to a lower
post after a spell of promotion in a higher post, his pay in the
lower post shall be fixed at the stage in the time scale of the lower
post at which he would have drawn pay but for his appointment to the
higher post as admissible under rule-39.”
5 Having
heard the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the
record, what transpires from the record is that, after considering
the overall facts, initially, the petitioner was compulsorily retired
from service by the Disciplinary Authority, but, on appeal, the
Chairman of the Gujarat Maritime Board, in exercise of powers
conferred upon the Appellate Authority, substituted the penalty of
compulsory retirement with reducing the petitioner to the lower rank
of the cadre and the pay-scale was to be fixed accordingly, namely,
from the pay-scale of 4500-7000 on the post of Master to the
pay-scale of Rs.4000-6000 on the post of Sarang. In spite of the
above fact, the Subordinate Officer, wrongly relying upon the Rule 15
of the Rules, fixed the pay-scale of the petitioner at Rs.4800/-
which is contrary to the order passed by the Appellate Authority. On
perusal of Rule 15 of the Rules, it applies in a situation where the
pay is to be fixed on reversion from higher to lower post and,
admittedly, in the instant case the petitioner was not reverted but
his major penalty of compulsory retirement is substituted by the
Appellate Authority by imposing punishment of reduction to lower
stage i.e. from the pay-scale of 4500-7000 on the post of Master to
the pay-scale of Rs.4000-6000 on the post of Sarang and, in view of
the above, the said Rule 15 is not applicable. Correction of an
administrative mistake by the Authority does not confer any right on
the employee for seeking remedy by challenging the order on the
ground of non-compliance of principles of natural justice. No case is
made out to interfere with the orders impugned in the present
petition.
6 In
the result, the petition is rejected. The interim relief stands
vacated. Notice is discharged with no order as to costs.
(ANANT
S. DAVE, J.)
(swamy)
Top