DUSHYANTKUMAR MANILAL VYAS Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner submits that he had applied for the advertised post of Technical Store Supervisor. He was interviewed for the said post. According to the petitioner, he is working on the said post. Howevef, he is not being paid the salary of that post, but he is being paid the salary of the lower post of Store Keeper which carries the pay scale of Rs. 330-560 as against the pay scale of Rs. 550-900. The petitioner has, therefore, prayed for a direction to the respondent to pay him the salary of Technical Store Supervisor and fix the revised pay in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900.

(2.) It is true that the petitioner had applied for the advertised post of Technical Store Supervisor and he was interviewed by the Staff Selection Committee for the said post. However, the Staff Selection Committee had not recommended him for the post of Technical Store Supervisor (Rs. 550-900), but the Staff Selection Committee had recommended the petitioner for appointment in the pay scale of Rs. 330-560 against the post of Technical Store Supervisor and the petitioner was specifically asked whether he was willing to accept the appointment to this post in the pay scale of Rs. 330-560 (See Annexure B to the petition). The petitioner consented to the said terms and conditions and the appointment order came to be issued on 13.1.1986, a copy of which is produced today by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. This order specifically puts the petitioner D.M. Vyas in the pay scale of Rs. 330-10-380EB-12-440-EB-12-560 in the post of Store Keeper on probation for a period of one year. Thus, four things are absolutely clear : (1) The Staff Selection Committee had not selected him for appointment as Technical Store Supervisor; and (2) The Committee had recommended him for the lower pay scale of Rs. 330-560. (3) The petitioner has consented to such appointment and (4) The actual order of appointment is for the post of Store Keeper (Rs. 330-560).

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no post of Store Keeper in the Engineering Department and that he has been working as a Technical Store Supervisor and not as a Store Keeper as there is no post of Store Keeper in the Engineering Department. It is further submitted that in the Statement at Annexure C, against the post of Technical Store Supervisor, it is mentioned that there is one sanctioned post and that sanctioned post is filled in and the name of person occupying that post is the petitioner D.M. Vyas. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner is appointed and working as Technical Store Supervisor and he should be paid accordingly. It is clear that he-4s not selected and appointed to the post of Technical Store Supervisor, but he is appointed against that post and appointed as Store Keeper in the pay scale of Rs. 330-560. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the submission that the petitioner is entitled to the higher post and higher pay scale of Technical Store Supervisor.