Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/14904/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 14904 of 2011
=========================================================
RAJESHBHAI
D SIDDHAPARA - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT THRO.INFORMATION COMMISSIONER & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
KETAN I ACHARYA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 14/11/2011
ORAL
ORDER
Heard
learned Advocate Mr. Ketan I. Acharya for the petitioner and learned
Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Nirag Pathak for the respondent –
State.
This
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by
the petitioner to declare him as eligible for second higher payscale
available under G.R. dated 16.08.1994 on completion of 24 years of
service.
As
contended by learned Advocate for the petitioner, the petitioner
joined the service of respondent authority initially on 17.07.1984
as a film operator and by this time, the petitioner has about 27
years of unblemished continuous service to his credit and thus, on
completion of 9 years of continuous service, the petitioner was
entitled for first higher payscale and the second higher payscale
would be due 15 years thereafter. Upon submissions of the
representation by the petitioner to receive second higher payscale
in terms of the Government Resolution, the claim of the petitioner
is rejected arbitrarily by the impugned order dated 09.12.2011 which
deserves to be quashed and set aside.
On
perusal of the overall service record of the petitioner, it appears
that the petitioner had filed Appeal No.451/2002 for claiming higher
payscale and after discussion at length, the Tribunal had concluded
that the petitioner was entitled to claim first higher payscale with
effect from 17.07.1997. In view of the overall service record, the
above order passed by the Tribunal on 02.07.2004 in the above appeal
remains final and thus, 15 years of service is necessary for
claiming second higher payscale by the petitioner. In the facts of
the case, after granting of first higher payscale as held by the
Tribunal with effect from 1997, the petitioner would be completing
15 years of service in the year 2012 and as per the Government
Resolution dated 16.08.1994, he would entitled only for the second
higher payscale in the year 2012 and therefore, the decision of the
respondent authority impugned in this petition cannot be said to be
in any manner illegal or arbitrary warranting interference by this
Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
In
view of the above, this application stands rejected with no order as
to costs.
Sd/-
(Anant
S. Dave, J.)
Caroline
Top