GUJARAT MARITIME BOARD Vs. RAMESH M TRIVEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Letters Patent Appeals have been filed challenging the common judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 25th March, 2010 in Special Civil Applications. We have taken up for hearing these Appeals for final disposal. The Letters Patent Appeal No. 1774 of 2010 arising out of Special Civil Application No. 11923 of 2008 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 Sec. 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 has 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 were working as Tradesmen and they were granted first higher grade pay- scale of the cadre of Foremen retrospectively from the date they completed nine years of service as Tradesman as stipulated in Government Resolution No. AOP-1091/3/M dated 5th July, 1991. The employees were although treated as Foremen by the Board.

(3.) THE learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has urged that the promotional post of Tradesman is Mistry, and Mistry is promoted as Foreman, but under a mistake the employees who were working as Tradesman were granted the first higher grade pay-scale of Foreman after completion of nine years service as Tradesman though they were entitled to the higher grade pay-scale of Mistry only. Therefore, excess amount paid to the employees is to be recovered by the Board. It is urged that the sanctioned set-up of posts is fixed by the Head Office at Gandhinagar and whatever the posts are fixed by the Head Office for each port, the employees are appointed or promoted.