AMRATBHAI MOHANBHAI HARIJAN Vs. DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of these petitions, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:

(2.) THE short facts leading to filing of this petitions are that the petitioners herein, are working as Sweeper with the respondentNagar Palika for last 20 to 25 years. They had been made permanent in the year 2001. It is the case of the petitioners that despite issuing letter of permanency, the respondents have not extended the benefits of fifth and sixth Pay Commission in their favour. 2.1. Being aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the petitioners filed S.C.A. No. 10729 of 2010, which came to be disposed of on 23.6.2011 with a liberty to the petitioners to make representation to the respondents, which was to be decided expeditiously. In pursuance of the said order, the petitioners made representations to the respondent Nagar Palika for granting the benefits of Fifth Pay Commission. However, the respondent No.1 rejected the said representations. Hence, these petitions.

(3.) IN the above backdrop of factual aspect, Mr. Nirad Buch, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners have placed reliance on the decision of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. Umadevi [(2006) 4 SCC 1] and further decision in the case of State of Karnataka and Ors. v. M.L. Kesari [(2010) 9 SCC 247] and submitted that in the case of the petitioners no one time measure either directed under para 3 of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. Umadevi or even as per the scheme is taken. It is further submitted that State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. M.L. Kesari and Ors. in paragraphs 9, 10 and 11, the Apex Court held as under: