PYARELAL GHONGDE Vs. SECRETARY/ADDITIONAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has claimed a relief of quashment of order dated 22.4.2010, by which the respondents have communicated the petitioner that he is not entitled to second higher grade pay scale because of the policy conditions, and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the second higher grade pay scale to the petitioner from the date it has become due. It is contended by the petitioner that initially he was appointed as a cleaner in the establishment of respondents on 28.11.1975. He was appointed directly as a driver with effect from 28.10.1988. Since the petitioner has completed 9 years of service in the pay scale in which he was appointed, he was granted the first higher grade pay scale with effect from 1.12.1999. Though the petitioner was further entitled to second higher grade pay scale on completion of 18 years of service, yet the said benefit was not extended. The Scheme of grant of higher grade pay scale to those employees who were having2 no promotional channel in the department was amended, but despite this, the benefit was not extended to the petitioner. Similarly situated persons though were junior to the petitioner, were granted the benefit of second higher grade pay scale, whereas, such a claim of the petitioner was rejected, therefore, he was required to file the present writ petition.

(2.) On service of the notice of the writ petition, the respondents have filed their response and have refuted the allegations made by the petitioner. It is contended in the return that Scheme stipulates that if a person has been given a higher placement in the service career, he will get the benefit of only one higher grade pay scale and the second higher grade pay scale would not be admissible to him. It is contended that the petitioner was initially appointed as a cleaner, was upgraded as a driver and, therefore, he was granted only one higher grade pay scale. In so far as the claim of second higher grade pay scale is concerned, since there was a specific bar under the Scheme, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to grant of second higher grade pay scale. It is, thus, contended that the petition is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and examined the record.