A.B. CHAVDA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Mr. D.M. Devnani, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of Rule for the respondents. On the facts, and in the circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and finally decided, today. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred, inter alia, with a prayer to quash and set aside the orders dated 01.06.2013 and 13.06.2013, passed by respondent No. 3 and, further, to direct the respondents to grant the second higher pay -scale of Rs. 5000 -8000, to the petitioner and revise his pay -scale as per the Gujarat (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2009.

(2.) THE case has a checkered history. The petitioner was appointed as Composite Reservist on 18.10.1979 in the pay -scale of Rs. 200 -250. By order dated 01.08.1979, the petitioner was appointed as Distributor in the pay -scale of Rs. 210 -270. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Lino Bar Attendant on 15/16.09.1981. By an order dated 29.08.1992, the petitioner was granted the first higher pay -scale of Rs. 1350 -2200 of the post of Lino Operator with effect from 16.09.1990. On introduction of the Revision of Pay Rules with effect from 1996, the pay -scale of the petitioner was revised to Rs. 4500 -7500 with effect from 01.01.1996, by the order dated 28.01.1998. By an order dated 07.01.2009, the aforesaid benefits which the petitioner had received because of the higher grade scale and pay revision came to be cancelled and a recovery of Rs. 5,14,000/ - was ordered by monthly installments of Rs. 5,000/ -. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed Special Civil Application No. 172 of 2009 before this Court challenging the same. By an order dated 12.02.2009, passed by this Court in the aforesaid petition, the order dated 07.01.2009, passed by the respondents was quashed and set aside on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. The respondents were directed to pass a fresh order after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

(3.) MR . A.S. Supehia, learned advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that the impugned orders are against the letter and spirit of the judgment dated 29.07.2010, passed in Special Civil Application No. 7387 of 2009, which has been confirmed by the Division Bench. It is submitted that in spite of specific directions contained in the said judgment that no recovery ought to be made from the petitioner, such recovery has been directed to be effected by the impugned order. In fact, the Court had directed the respondents to refund the amount recovered from the petitioner. It is further submitted that this Court, vide aforementioned judgment, has held that the petitioner shall be deemed to have received the second higher grade scale of Lino Operator with effect from 16.09.2005, therefore, the grade -pay of the petitioner could not have been reduced by the impugned order.