MAHESHKUMAR CHHATRAPATI DAVE Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.P.J.Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioners and Mr.Neeraj Soni, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent authorities.

(2.) By way of this petition, the petitioners have claimed that the petitioners ought to have been granted the pay-scale of Rs.260-400 since their appointment in the year 1984. Petitioners were appointed as Packers-Cum-Sorter in Photo Registry department in the year 1984 in the pay scale of Rs.200-233. It is claimed that the said appointment ought to have been in the pay-scale of Rs.260-400, which ought to have been revised as Rs.950-1500 with effect from 01.01.1986, and further revision thereof with effect from 01.01.1996 should have been in the pay-scale of Rs.3050-4590. In substance it is the grievance that the initial appointment of the petitioners in the year 1984, in the pay-scale of Rs.200-232 was wrong and petitioners ought to have been appointed in the pay-scale of Rs.260-400.

(3.) The challenge is based mainly on the Recruitment Rules dated 26.10.1976 and 20.03.1985 for the post in question, which is on record, wherein it is pointed out that the post on which the petitioners were appointed was treated to be class-III post. It is the contention of learned advocate for the petitioners that since the petitioners were appointed on a post which by rules was treated to be a class-III post, the petitioners ought to have been given pay-scale of Rs.260-400 which is otherwise given to class-III cadres and it is pointed out that the cadre of Junior Clerk was getting the said pay-scale. Learned advocate for the petitioners also made comparison with the nature of work of the petitioners, who are Packers-cum-Sorters, in Photo Registry Department, who claim, if not higher, at least, equal pay-scale to that of Junior Clerk. Reliance is also placed on the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.98 of 2000 in Special Civil Application No.10365 of 1999, dated 17.02.2001 to claim that the petitioners ought to have been given the pay-scale claimed in this petition. Mr.Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioners, has further placed reliance on Rule 9(27) and Rule 9(35) of Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1959 ('the Rules, 1959', for short). He has also relied on Rule 161(1)(a)(b) of the Rules, 1959 to point out the different superannuation age. He has also drawn attention of the Court to the corresponding new, renumbered provisions in 2002 Rules being Rules 11, 48 and 85, with specific reference to Note-2 in Rule 85 of Gujarat Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 2002 and Rule 3 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Classification and Recruitment) General Rules, 1967, to contend that the petitioners should get reliefs as prayed for in this petition.