TARACHAND BHOPATRAM AHIR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking direction to the respondent authorities to grant the benefits of higher grade pay-scale w.e.f. 4/3/1992 and the action on the part of the respondent authorities in not considering such claim to be discriminatory. Primary, the case of the petitioner is to seek benefit under the Government Resolution dtd. 16/8/1994 where the employees have stagnated at one post are being considered after serving for a specific period to be granted higher grade pay scale.

(2.) Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the appointment of the petitioner in the MTO Sec. of respondent Department was of 4/3/1983 and after completing period of 9 years, was entitled to the benefits of the Resolution dtd. 16/8/1994. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has been deprived of such benefit on account of the stand of the respondent Department that the petitioner has not cleared an examination stipulated for the promotional post however, attention is drawn to the Circular of the Police Department dtd. 3/10/1994, indicating that in so far as the Band Department, Armour Department and Motor Transport Department are concerned, such clearing of examination was not required. Accordingly, the petitioner was entitled for being considered for higher grade pay scale. Learned advocate also relied upon the decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No.1734 of 2004, wherein order was passed while admitting the matter on 28/9/2004, where observations were made with regards to the claim of benefit to that petitioner who was identically situated as the present petitioner and that the petition came to be finally disposed of by oral judgment dtd. 30/9/2016, wherein the Department was directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner therein. Learned advocate has strongly relied upon these two orders and has prayed for grant such benefit.

(3.) As against this, learned Assistant Government Pleader has drawn attention of this Court to oral order dtd. 7/5/2019 in a group of Letters Patent Appeals, the lead matter being Letters Patent Appeal No.1076 of 2019 in Special Civil Application No.12660 of 2012 (Letters Patent Appeal No.1119 of 2019 in Special Civil Application No.3189 of 2013 of the petitioner), where the petitioner was also one of the respondents and the issue before the Letters Patent Bench was with regards to the forged school leaving certificate in getting employment in the Department. After considering the submissions made on behalf of the State and considering the longevity of service rendered by the respective respondents- original petitioners, the Court had disposed of the Letters Patent Appeals, directing that the respondents therein would be entitled to the pension only to the extent of 50% which is otherwise receivable by them. It is submitted that pursuant to the aforesaid oral order, the Department has passed an order dtd. 5/8/2019 and accordingly, the benefits have been extended and therefore, the claim of the petitioner is now covered in the aforesaid orders as petitioner was also one of the parties therein.