LAWS(GJH)-2013-4-131

S.P.PARMAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On April 24, 2013
S.P.Parmar Appellant
V/S
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Biren A. Vaishnav, learned advocate for the petitioners, Ms. Sejal Mandavia, learned advocate for the RespondentBoard and Mr.Rindani learned Assistant Government Pleader for the StateAuthorities.

(2.) CHALLENGE in this petition is made to the order passed by the RespondentBoard dated 28.04.2003, whereby the PayScale of the petitioners is reduced with retrospective effect, ordering consequential recovery also. Since the facts and contentions of both the sides, in both these petitions are identical, for convenience, facts of Special Civil Application No. 6881 of 2003 are recorded in this order. In Special Civil Application No. 6881 of 2003, there is further order dated 16.05.2003 which is a consequential order of the impugned order dated 28.04.2003. It needs to be recorded that the impugned order dated 28.04.2003 and consequential order dated 16.05.2003 are already stayed by this Court vide order dated 20.05.2003 and these orders are thus not implemented so far. It further needs to be recorded that, the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 6881 of 2003 has even retired on attaining the age of superannuation in October, 2012.

(3.) ON the other hand Ms. Sejal Mandavia learned advocate for the respondentGujarat Maritime Board, by referring to the affidavitinreplies filed on behalf of RespondentBoard has contended that the petitioners were not entitled to the PayScale of Rs. 12002040 and therefore, the action of the respondent of withdrawing the same and thereby correcting its mistake, was legal and valid and this Court may not interfere in the same. Learned advocate for the respondent Board has also taken the Court through three affidavit in replies dated 23.07.2003, 21.12.2012 and 07.03.2013 and contended that what is withdrawn by the RespondentsBoard is, what the petitioners were not entitled to, and therefore the petitioners may not be granted any relief. It is further contended that the stay operating against the implementation of the impugned order be vacated.