GUJARAT MARITIME BOARD Vs. HARESH H BHATT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Letters Patent Appeals have been filed challenging the common judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 15th June, 2010 in the Special Civil Applications. We have taken up for hearing these Appeals for final disposal. The Letters Patent appeal No.1868 of 2010 arising out of Special Civil Application No.7391 of 2009 shall be treated as the leading Appeal.

(2.) THE short factual matrix of this group of Appeals is that the respondents in the Appeals who were petitioners in the writ petitions were working with the Gujarat Maritime Board (for short "the Board") which was constituted on 5th April, 1982 under the provisions of Section 3(2) of Gujarat Maritime Board Act, 1981 (for short "the Act"). It was brought into force by the State Government from 5th April, 1982 by Port and Fisheries Department Notification dated 3rd April, 1982. THE respondents in these Appeals were appointed when the Board was in existence. Since no service Regulations or Rules were framed by the State Government for the employees of the Board, therefore, the State Government issued a circular dated 16.4.1982 that the Government had decided that the Board should follow and continue the prevailing administrative/financial rules and regulations and about other matters, procedures, circulars, instructions, all schemes and approvals, subject to the provision of the Act from the date of formation of the Board, till the rules and regulations are framed by the Government. THE service of the employees of the Board were governed by the administrative/financial Rules which were prevailing. All the employees who are before this Court are working as Khalasi and they were granted first higher grade pay scale of the cadre of Tradesman retrospectively from the date they completed nine years of service as Khalasi as stipulated in Government Resolution no.AOP-1091/3/M dated 5th July, 1991. THE employees were although treated as Tradesman by the Board.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the employees Mr Paresh Upadhyay has urged that Tradesman is the next promotional post. Khalasi were being promoted on the post of Tradesman as pay scale of Khalasi and Assistant Tradesman was one and the same pay scale of Rs.200-250. The post of Khalasi and Assistant Tradesman were inter-changeable and Khalasi could be transferred to the post of Assistant Tradesman and vice versa, an Assistant Tradesman could be transferred on the post of Khalasi. Tradesman is the next promotional post. Learned counsel for the respondents have placed on record orders dated 7.11.1989, 30.11.1991 and 22.12.1993 passed by the appellants by which Khalasis were transferred to the post of Assistant Tradesman. ON the strength of these orders, learned counsel for the employees have urged that prior to the creation of the Board and even after creation of the Board, the posts of Khalasi and Assistant Tradesman were in the same pay scales and they were interchangeable and transferable. 5.1. Learned counsel for the employees have further urged that draft rules which were framed on 11th August, 1976, even after 35 years, have not yet been notified and the State Government never intended to notify these draft rules and therefore, these draft rules could not be considered either to be rules or executive/ administrative instructions governing the service conditions of the employees working under the Board. They further urged that service conditions of the employees of the Board were governed by the prevailing administrative/financial rules and the draft rules could not be relied by the appellants. 5.2. Learned counsel for the respondents have further urged that the higher grade pay scale of Tradesman was given to the employees between 1991 to 1994. After more than 17 to 18 years it was not open to the appellants to challenge that pay scales of Tradesman were wrongly given. The higher grade pay scale of Tradesman was granted to the respondents by the appellant after obtaining approval from the higher authorities between 1991 to 1994 and there was no misrepresentation made by the respondents. The accounts of the Board were also audited and no audit objection was raised at any point of time against the respondents/Tradesman.