S J RAJGURU Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, learned AGP waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No.1, and Mr. Rajesh Chahuan learned advocate appearing for H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

(2.) By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 30.12.1998 passed by the respondent No. 2 (Annexure 'A'), as being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the resolution passed by the State Government, and also prayed to set aside the order dated 15.05.1998 passed by the respondent No. 2 (Annexure 'B') to the extent of imposition of the condition of withdrawal of higher grade pay conditionally.

(3.) The short facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Livestock Inspector with the Animal Husbandry Department of the State Government vide the order dated 18.10.1979. Subsequently, the petitioner was selected by the District Panchayat, Rajkot on the post of Livestock Inspector, and therefore the petitioner resigned from the State Government services. The petitioner resumed the duty as such from 01.06.1982. According to the petitioner, in order to deal with the issue of stagnation in many cadres, the State Government had announced the scheme of higher grade scale vide the resolution dated 20.02.1991, and thereafter vide the resolution dated 05.07.1991 introduced the scheme of grant of higher pay scale subject to certain conditions. Since there was no avenue of promotion from the post of Livestock Inspector in the Animal Husbandry Department of the respondent Panchayat, the respondent No. 3 vide the order dated 28.12.1992 granted higher grade scale to the petitioner with effect from 01.09.1991 (Annexure 'E'). It is further case of the petitioner that in the year 1998, the petitioner was serving as Livestock Inspector at the Primary Animal Health Centre at Ramod, and was also in charge of Kotda Sangani Primary Health Centre. The respondent No. 2 vide the order dated 15.05.1998 (Annexure 'B') sent the petitioner on deputation on temporary basis by way of promotion to the post of Extension Officer at the office of District Rural Development Agency, Rajkot for being posted at Bhadla, Taluka Jasdan. The said District Rural Development Agency thereafter passed the detailed order of posting vide communication dated 26.05.1998 (Annexure 'F') posting the petitioner at Taluka Dhoraji. The petitioner therefore requested the respondent No. 3 vide his representation dated 09.06.1998 to give him posting at Kotda Sangani, which request was rejected by the respondent No. 3 vide the communication dated 15.07.1998 and the petitioner was directed to report at the transferred place. It was stated that if the petitioner failed to report at the transfer place, the order of promotion shall be cancelled. In the meanwhile, the respondent No. 1 ­ State Government vide the resolution dated 22.09.1998 downgraded the post of Extension Officer in DRDA to the post of Livestock Inspector (Annexure 'J'). The petitioner therefore again made a request on 08.10.1998 to consider his posting at Kotda Sangani, however, the said request was not considered and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 vide the impugned order dated 30.12.1998 (Annexure 'A') withdrew the benefit of higher pay scale granted to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had denied to accept the promotion order dated 15.05.1998. The petitioner therefore made a detailed representation dated 18.01.1999 pointing out that the post of Extension Officer was already downgraded by the State Government, and therefore, the petitioner was not desirous to accept the alleged post of promotion. Since the respondent did not respond to the representation of the petitioner, the petitioner had approached the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal, by preferring an appeal being No. 131 of 1999. The Tribunal vide the order dated 12.10.2001, allowed the said appeal and directed the respondent Panchayat to reimburse the consequential financial loss suffered by the petitioner (Annexure 'M'). The respondent No. 2 being aggrieved by the said order of Tribunal had preferred the Special Civil Application No. 1842 of 2002 before this Court, which came to be allowed on the ground that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal filed by the petitioner. However, the Court permitted the petitioner to challenge the impugned order by filing petition without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. Hence, the petitioner filed the present petition.