H P GOHIL Vs. HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and order directing the respondent No. 3 to verify /approve the higher grade scale to the petitioner on the basis of the order dated 13/18. 4. 2007 passed by the respondent No. 2.

(2.) PETITIONER was appointed as an Assistant (Junior Clerk) initially in the Kutch District vide appointment order dated 17. 11. 1995. He requested for voluntary transfer and he was transferred on 1. 11. 2003 in Kheda District. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner considering 9 years service and he applied for higher pay scale on 13. 12. 2006. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that as per the Government Resolution dated 16. 8. 1994, petitioner became eligible for the first higher grade scale i. e. on completion of 9 years of total service (including his service with the Kutch District Court where he was initially appointed ). That vide letter dated 31. 3. 2007 written by the respondent No. 3 to the respondent No. 2, request of the petitioner for higher grade scale has been rejected on the ground that petitioner opted for voluntary transfer from Kutch District to Kheda District and the same was accepted on condition that petitioner will lose the seniority for all purposes, therefore, 9 years service for granting benefit of higher grade scale is required to be considered from the date he joined the District Kheda. Hence, petitioner has preferred the present Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) THE controversy raised in the petition is squarely covered by the following decisions of the Division Bench as well learned Single Judge of this Court as well as recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Uttam Vishun Power reported in 2008 AIR SCW 937. 1) Unreported decision of the learned Single Judge dated 24. 07. 2001 in Special Civil Application No. 8076 of 1995 in the case of Jayesh Balashanker Dave v/s. State of Gujarat confirmed by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 187 of 2003 and further confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as the Special Leave Petitions against the said decision has been dismissed. Unreported decision of the Division Bench dated 05. 05. 2003 in Letter Patent Appeal No. 229 of 2003 and other cognate appeals in the case of Paragbhai Bhagwandas Patel and Ors. V/s. State of Gujarat and Ors. Unreported decision of the Division Bench dated 20. 12. 2003 in Letter Patent Appeal No. 761 of 2003 in Special Civil Application No. 10469 of 1999 in the case of State of Gujarat and Ors. V/s. Mulchandbhai Lavjibhai Patel and Ors. Ajitsinh Chaturji Rathod v/s. State of Gujarat reported in 2004 (4) GLR 3181. State v/s. Muchandbhai L Patel reported in 2004 (1) GLR 536 unreported decision of the learned Single Judge dated dated 12. 02. 2008 in Special Civil Application No. 12721 of 2007 and Anr. Confirmed by the Division Bench dated 06. 10. 2008 in Letter Patent Appeal No. 789 of 2008 and other cognate appeals in the case of District Development Officer and Anr. V/s. Devenkumar Rameshchandra Yagnik.