I. C. SHAH Vs. ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed by two petitioners for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Additional DevelopmentCommissioner-first respondent herein and for directing the respondent authorities to grant the petitioners difference of pay and allowances on the basis of deemed date of promotion and actual date of promotion.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioners that they were employed as clerks in the year 1962 in the Collectorate of Ahmedabad and they were allocated to the District Panchayat, Ahmedabad with effect from April 1, 1963 in view of the passing of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961. Seniority list came to be published by second respondent in August 1974 and the petitioners were assigned the seniority from the date they passed the examination conducted by the Service Selection Board. Said seniority list came to be challenged by the petitioners and that challenge was successful and the petitioners were given due placement in the seniority and deemed date of promotion on that basis. It was the case of the petitioners that a similar challenge was made by one Mr. N. S. Tai and that petition came to be allowed and Mr. Tai was also granted deemed date of promotion.

(3.) In view of the refixation of the seniority and the deemed date of promotion, the petitioners were entitled to get the arrears of salary. Unfortunately, however the payment of salary was not made to them. Mr. Tai was also not paid the arrears of salary by respondent No. 2. Mr. Tai, therefore, approached the appellate authority that is the first respondent herein by filing appeal against the order passed by respondent No. 2 and the first respondent allowed the said appeal filed by Mr. Tai and held that the contentions raised by Mr. Tai were well founded and required to be accepted and accordingly the respondent No. 1, by an order dated January 3, 1980 Annexure F to the petition, directed the second respondent to pay the difference of salary to Mr Tai for the period between September 27, 1974 and May 19, 1976. It is the case of the petitioners that when they came to know about the said fact, they also made the applications to the second respondent herein on February 23, 1980 (Annexure G - Petitioner No. 1) and dated January 22, 1980 (Annexure H Petitioner No. 2) and prayed that they may also be paid the difference of salary as has been done in the case of Mr. Tai The applications as aforesaid made by the petitioners however came to be rejected by the respondent No. 2 vide Annexure I-1 and I-2 on July 8, 1980 Both the petitioners, therefore approached the first respondent by filing appeal against that order. It was contended before the first respondent that they were similarly situated to Mr. Tai and since Mr. Tai was granted the consequential benefit of placement in seniority list and the deemed date of promotion, equal benefits ought to have been extended to the appellants-petitioners also. Refusal to grant similar benefits to the petitioners would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It was submitted that the action of respondent No. 2 in rejecting the application of the petitioners was illegal, contrary to law and was required to be interfered with by the appellate authority.