LAWS(GJH)-2009-5-69

RANJANBEN VITHALBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On May 14, 2009
RANJANBEN VITHALBHAI PATEL Appellant
V/S
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS in both the petitions, the facts are interconnected, they are being considered by this common judgement.

(2.) THE short facts of the case appear to be that the petitioners are appointed in the set up of Gujarat Agricultural University, the respondent No. 2 herein. The details of the appointment orders, post, qualification held by the them, are mentioned in the statement produced at Annexure-A. It further appears that when the petitioners were appointed, they were in the pay-scale of Rs. 325-575 since the pay-scale was prevailing then. Thereafter, on 05. 03. 1979, based on the recommendation of University Grants Commission (hereinafter referred to as SUGC), the Government decided to revise the pay-scale of the Instructor, Lecturer-equivalent from Rs. 300-600 to Rs. 700-1600. It appears that there was no clarity about the effect to be given to the lecturers appointed during a particular period or not and therefore, various representations were made and the Committees were appointed and ultimately, it was recommended to give benefit to the persons who were on the cadre from 01. 04. 1973 to 21. 02. 1977. The petitioners were not granted benefit and therefore, they made the representation, but no decision was taken. Therefore, the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 6416/92 together with the other persons preferred Special Civil Application No. 8709/89 before this Court and this Court vide order dated 30. 07. 1990, directed the appropriate authority to take decision upon the representation of the petitioners. No action was taken and it appears that in the meantime, the respondent No. 2 University considered the matter and found that the case of the petitioners deserves to be considered for revision of pay-scale and therefore also, moved the proposal to the State Government for grant of sanction to confer revised pay-scale to the petitioners for the relevant period. However, there were some correspondences. In any case, the decision was not taken. At that stage, the petitioners have approached to this Court by the present petition.

(3.) HEARD Mr. Parikh for the petitioners. Mr. Gaekwad for Mr. Shelat for respondent No. 2 University and Mr. Raval, learned AGP for the State.