MB PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition, challenge is made to the action of the respondent authorities of reducing the pay of the petitioner and effecting consequential recovery from his pay. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Compounder on 29.09.1969 by the competent authority. The said appointment was after calling the names from the Employment Exchange Office of the Government. Further, the petitioner along with other similarly situated persons, was asked to appear before District Panchayat Services Selection Committee- the district level recruitment agency of the Government, for required examination and selection, which the petitioner had passed through and thereafter, on the recommendations of the said committee, the petitioner was appointed as Compounder by the appointment order dated 24.7.1970 issued by the District Health Officer, Valsad.

(2.) FOR years and decades, things remained settled. Yearly increments, revision of pay from time to time, verification thereof from time to time, every stage was in order. Even the higher grade scale, as per the policy of the Government was also granted to the petitioner vide order dated 27.2.1992 Anx.D. In the year 1997, the authorities, on internal correspondence, without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or without even passing any order, reduced the pay of the petitioner with retrospective effect and ordered consequential recovery, on the ground that the petitioner was not registered as junior pharmacist with the Gujarat State Pharmacy Council. The said internal instruction of the District Panchayat, Valsad addressed to all the medical officers of respective primary health center is dated August 28/30, 1997, Annexure-I (page-21), which gave rise to this petition. The said communication was treated to be the impugned order in this petition. On this petition, initially notice was issued on 15.09.1997 making it returnable on 13.10.1997. While issuing notice, implementation and operation of the impugned order was stayed by this Court. On the returnable date 13.10.1997, in absence of any reply from any of the respondents, the petition was admitted and the said interim relief was confirmed, which is operating till date. Thus the impugned order is not implemented.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsels for the respective parties and going through the material on record, I find that the basis of passing the impugned order is that the petitioner and similarly situated about 19 persons in Valsad District had not registered themselves as Junior Pharmacist with the Gujarat State Pharmacy Council. Be it noted that they had neither applied for pharmacists nor were appointed on said post nor was there any stipulation of getting themselves registered with Pharmacy Council. The original appointment of the petitioner and such persons was on the post of compounder- then prevailing, which was in the year 1969-1970, that too after getting the names from Employment Exchange and after undertaking regular selection process. Whether the petitioner was qualified to be appointed as compounder or not, is not the question which needs to be addressed at this stage. Even if it is required, there is ample material on record to demonstrate that he was qualified compounder as is evident from audit authority's endorsements which are on record.