B R SOLANKI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, Peon-cum-Driver working in the office of the District Collector, Ahmedabad have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to accord the equal treatment of upgrading their posts from Peon-cum-Driver to that of Driver as it is accorded in case of some of the similarly situated employees of Kheda District and Surat district. The denial to accord the said benefit is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Facts in brief deserve to be set out as under.

(3.) The petitioners have been working as Peon-cum-Driver. The petitioners have also made grievances in respect of non-granting them the benefits of higher pay scale in pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 16.8.1994, wherein, the employee, who has been eligible and yet not promoted to the higher post and has stagnated on the said post for 9 years, is entitled to receive benefits of higher pay scale of the promotional posts. The similarly situated Peon-cum-Driver on the establishment of the Kheda Collectorate and Surat Collectorate were given benefits by the State, Revenue Department and their posts were upgraded to that of Drivers. The present petitioners, who were working as Peon-cum-Driver in the Ahmedabad Collectorate have not been accorded the same benefit despite the repeated requests. The petitioners were constrained to file petition being Special Civil Application No. 5058 of 2003, which was disposed of by this Court (Coram: P.B.Majmudar, J.) vide order dated 22.4.2003. This Court (Coram: P.B.Majmudar, J.) issued directions to the concerned Collector to decide petitioners' representation within the stipulated time. On such direction, the petitioners had withdrawn the petition. The petitioners accordingly preferred representation on 1.5.2003 enlisting the grievances. The concerned Collector did not decide the same and therefore, notice was required to be issued for due compliance with the order of this Court (Coram: P.B.Majmudar, J.) dated 22.4.2003. The petitioners had to once again file the present petition as the representation had remained undecided. The respondents have during the pendency of this petition vide letter dated 29.8.2003 rejected the representation. Learned AGP Shri Makwana for the State has placed on record the said order. The respondents have rejected the representation in respect of three enlisted demands that promotion to the post of Driver was given as per the seniority in the establishment; with regard to second demand of receiving higher scale of pay on the basis of the Finance Department Resolution dated 16.8.1994, the respondents have admitted that the petitioners were entitled to receive the benefit of higher pay scale but not the scale admissible to the post of driver and with regard to third demand of seeking benefit of upgradation, it is admitted by the respondents that proposal was in fact moved to the State. But the respondent State vide circular/letter dated 10.1.2002 informed all the Collectors that due to prevalent economy measure, the demands like upgradation of the post of Peon-cum-Driver to that of Driver cannot be accepted. The petitioners have thus not been given either the benefit of higher pay scale admissible to the post of Driver nor have they been given the benefits of up-gradation of their posts namely Peon-cum-Driver to that of Driver as it has been given in case of Kheda Collectorate and Surat Collectorate. The petitioners have filed the petition challenging the denial.