JAGDIPSINH DADOOBHAI CHUDASMA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed for the following prayer:

(2.) Learned advocate Mr.N.K.Majmudar appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that except petitioner No.4, all the petitioners being petitioner Nos.1 to 3 have retired from service. He has submitted that the respondent authorities have asked them to file an undertaking in order to avail the benefit of the higher pay-scale as per the Government Resolution dtd. 30/7/2013 issued by the respondent- Corporation, which is illegal. He has submitted that if the petitioners are asked to give the undertaking, they would not be entitled to the actual benefits. He has submitted that such action runs contrary to the Government Resolution dtd. 17/10/1994, which was issued by the State Government for granting the benefit of higher pay-scale to the medical officers. It is thus submitted that the Government Resolution dtd. 30/7/2013 is discriminatory and hence, the same is required to be quashed and set aside and the respondents may be directed to grant the benefit of higher pay-scale from the initial date of appointment. Thus, he has submitted that the writ petition may be allowed. No further submissions are advanced.

(3.) Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Satyam Chhaya appearing on behalf of the respondent-Corporation has submitted that the prayers made in the writ petition are not maintainable. It is submitted that the petitioners along with other petitioners had filed the writ petition being Special Civil Application No.14506 of 2008 claiming the benefit of higher pay-scale as per the Government Resolution dtd. 17/10/1994. He has submitted that there were total 53 petitioners and 45 petitioners had accepted the benefit of higher pay-scale in view of the resolution dtd. 8/7/2013 passed by the respondent-Corporation. It is submitted that the respondent-Corporation has issued the Circular dtd. 8/5/2013 extending the benefit of higher pay-scale but with a rider that the benefit will be extended w.e.f. 1/1/2006 and actual benefit would be given from 1/5/2013. It is submitted that the cut-off dates are stipulated in the scheme looking to the financial constraints and implications, hence the petitioners are bound by such cut-off dates for getting the benefit of higher pay scale. It is submitted that the aforesaid Circular was very much on record and the petitioners did not challenge the said scheme or did not they raise any objection and since the similarly situated persons like the petitioners having accepted the same, it is not open for the petitioners to challenge it. He has further submitted that this Court in the order dtd. 30/3/2016 had directed the Commissioner only to consider the cases of the petitioners and accordingly the respondent-Corporation had considered their cases however, since the petitioners did not give the undertaking as required, such benefit was not extended.