A L VAMECHA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Ms. Krina Calla, learned AGP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing today.

(2.) BY way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and/or order quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 2-3/04/2009 directing the respondents to grant higher grade scale to the petitioner from 03. 01. 1996 as stated in column no. 7 (A) of the order dated 07. 07. 2005 i. e. on completion of nine years service from the date of initial appointment.

(3.) IT is the case on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is serving as Assistant Co-operative Officer, Class III post, under the District Registrar Cooperative Societies, Palanpur, Dist- Banaskantha. By order dated 31. 12. 1986 the petitioner was appointed as Clerk under the Revenue Department. That the petitioner was declared surplus in the Revenue Department and on his becoming surplus, vide order dated 30. 08. 1988 the petitioner was allotted to the Cooperative Department and since then he has been working in the said Department. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that on completion of 9 years of service from the date of joining Cooperative Department, the petitioner was granted first higher grade scale from 01. 09. 1997 vide order dated 10. 09. 1999. That the said order was passed by counting only services of the petitioner rendered in the Cooperative Department. That thereafter on 07. 07. 2005, respondent No. 2 again granted the first higher grade scale to the petitioner by counting the total service including the services rendered in the Revenue Department. As a result of same, the petitioner was granted first higher grade from 03. 01. 1996. Said order dated 07. 07. 2005 came to be implemented by the respondents. That thereafter by impugned order dated 16. 01. 2009 the respondent No. 2 cancelled the aforesaid order dated 07. 07. 2005 taking view that while considering the higher grade scale the seniority is to be taken into consideration as laid down in the Government Resolution dated 16. 08. 1994 and 02. 07. 2007. Thus, for the purpose of higher grade scale, the services rendered in the Revenue Department are not taken into account. That by impugned order not only benefit of higher grade scale granted to the petitioner with effect from 03. 01. 1996 has been taken away but the respondents have sought recovery on the difference on the salary granted on the basis of order dated 10. 09. 1999. It the case on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No. 1766 of 2009 and said Special Civil Application came to be partly allowed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 27. 02. 2009 by quashing and setting aside the order dated 16. 01. 2009 on the ground that same was in violation of principles of natural justice and it was directed to treat order dated 16. 01. 2009 as show-cause notice. The petitioner replied to the same vide reply dated 07. 03. 2009 and again by impugned order dated 02-03/04. 2009 respondent No. 2 rejected the representation reiterating what is stated in the earlier order dated 16. 01. 2009. Mr. Supheia, learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that so far as the question / dispute with respect to counting services rendered by the petitioner in the Revenue Department for the purpose of higher pay grade is concerned, for interpretation of para 3 (15) of Government Resolution dated 16. 08. 1994 the petitioner would like to make representation to respondent No. 1 submitting that even after the petitioner was declared surplus and was accommodated in another Department, earlier services rendered by the petitioner is also required to be considered for the purpose of granting benefit of higher grade scale. Therefore, it is requested that suitable observation be made directing the respondents to take appropriate decision on the representation that may be made by the petitioner on the aforesaid aspect at the earliest.