MAHENDRABHAI H PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WITH the consent of the learned counsel appearing for both the sides the matter is finally heard today.

(2.) THE short facts of the case appear to be that the petitioners are employees of respondent No. 3 Municipality, and as per the petitioners formerly it was Vadnagar nagar Panchayat, and now Vadnagar municipality since 1994. As per the director of Municipalities, since establishment expenses exceeded 45 per cent in comparison to the revenue of the : municipality in the accounting year 2004-2005 and 2006-2007, the show-cause notice was issued on 13. 09. 2006 by the respondent no. 2 Director of Municipalities as to why direction should not be given under Section 260 of the Act for discontinuation of the benefits of the fifth pay commission. The municipality was heard and after considering the report of the municipality the respondent No. 2 passed an order on 27. 12. 2006 whereby exercise of power under Section 260 of the Act, the benefit of fifth pay commission is suspended/stayed. It is also observed that whenever financial condition of the municipality is improved : and the establishment expenses are within 45 per cent, the matter shall be re-considered upon the proposal by the municipality for continuation of the benefits of the fifth pay commission. It may also be stated that as per the petitioners they had moved an application for being joined as party. However, they were not heard before the respondent No. 2. On 5. 1. 2007, the petitioners preferred an appeal against the order passed by respondent No. 2, before the State Government with the application for leave to prefer an appeal. As per the petitioners, on 6. 1. 2007, as the petitioners had the apprehension that the order passed by respondent No. 2 may be implemented, the matter was pursued for interim order. However, respondent No. 1 refused to grant stay, and since there was no decision in writing, the petitioners had to prefer writ petition being SCA No. 5624 of 2007 and in the said petition this Court (Coram: A. S. Dave. J.) vide order dated 9. 3. 2007, directed respondent No. 1 to decide the case within stipulated time limit. But no action was taken and the petitioners had to move contempt petition being MCA No. 996 of 2007, in which the notice was issued by the division Bench of this Court taking up the contempt matters. As per the petitioners in view of the initiation of the contempt proceedings, the revision/appeal which was preferred by the petitioners before the State government, came to be decided ex pane, and it is under these circumstances the petitioners have approached this Court.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Mangukiya learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Joshi learned Additional Advocate General with mr. Dabhi learned AGP for the State authority.