Gujarat High Court
M K Panchal vs State Of Gujarat on 23 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1519/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1519 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
M K PANCHAL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PR ABICHANDANI(102) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS. PRACHI UPADHYAY FOR MR VAIBHAV A VYAS(2896) for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS. DHWANI TRIPATHI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 - STATE
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 23/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. The present petition is filed by the petitioner for seeking the following reliefs:
"A) direct the respondent authorities to grant the first higher grade scale of Rs. 4500-7000 to the petitioner with effect from 1.1.1996, with all consequential benefits, and (B) quash and set aside the Government Resolution dated 18.8.2009, Annexure-F to this petition, in so far as it resolved that the cases of the persons who had availed the Page 1 of 14 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 21:29:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1519/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined benefit of first higher grade scale prior to 1.1.1996 should not be re-opened, and (C) award the cost of this petition, and (D) pending admission and final disposal of this petition the Honourable Court may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to grant the first higher grade scale of Rs.
4500-7000 to the petitioner with effect from 1.1.1996 with all consequential benefits and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to make payment of arrears to the petitioner, and (E) grant any other relief or pass any other order which the Honourable Court may consider as just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. Brief facts as stated in the memo of the petition are as under:
2.1 It is the case of the petitioner in this petition that the petitioner is working in the cadre of Surveyor since 12.11.1981 and prior to Revision of Pay Rules, 1998, the hierarchy of posts of Surveyor, Senior Clerk, and Maintenance Surveyor was different and their pay-scales were also different. It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition that prior to the Revision of Page 2 of 14 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 21:29:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1519/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined Pay Rules 1998, the persons working in the cadre of Surveyor in the pay-scale of Rs. 1200-1800/- were entitled to the first higher grade scale of the post of Senior Clerk, carrying the pay-scale of Rs. 1200-2040, upon completion of 9 years of service and pursuant to the Revision of Pay Rules, 1998, which was implemented with retrospective effect from 01.01.1996, the pay-scales of the above referred posts namely Surveyor, Senior Clerk and Maintenance Surveyor were revised and merged together into an identical pay-scale of Rs. 4000-
6000 and the pay-scale of the next higher post of Sheristedar was revised to Rs. 4500-7000. It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition that due to the implementation of the Revision of Pay Rules, a situation was created whereby, the persons who were appointed in the year 1987 or thereafter in the cadre of Surveyor would be getting the first higher grade scale of the post of Shirestedar carrying the pay-scale of Rs. 4500-7000, upon completing nine years service on the said post, since they became eligible for the first higher pay-scale only after 1.1.1996, whereas the petitioner, who is admittedly senior to those persons, is getting the pay- scale of Rs. 4500-7000, as the second higher grade scale Page 3 of 14 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 21:29:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1519/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined only upon completion of 24 years of service, instead of Rs. 5000-8000, which he is entitled to get. 2.2 It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition that the petitioner has made several representations to remove this anomaly. It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition that even the head of the department, having found substance in the grievance of the petitioner, has made detailed recommendation to the authorities of the Government, requesting them to grant the first higher pay-scale of Rs. 4500-7000 to the petitioner and similarly situated persons. It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition that pursuant to the said recommendations, the authorities of the Government resolved to grant the benefit of first higher pay-scale of Rs. 4500-7000 to the persons, who were eligible for the same on or after 01.01.1996. However, it was further resolved that the cases of the persons, who had availed the benefit of first higher grade scale prior to 01.01.1996 should not be re- opened. It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition that once again the head of the department respondent No.3 made a detailed proposal to the Page 4 of 14 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 21:29:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1519/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined authorities of the Government, explaining in detail as to why the benefit of the pay-scale of Rs. 4500-7000 should be granted to the petitioner and other similarly situated persons and recommended to grant the said benefit of the petitioner and similarly situated persons. It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition that thereafter, the Government by letter dated 25.08.2009 informed the petitioner that the request of the petitioner for grant of second higher pay-scale of Rs. 5000-8000 cannot be accepted. Hence, the present petition has been preferred.
3. Heard Ms. Prachi Upadhyay, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Vaibhav Vyas, learned advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Dhwani Tripathi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents-State.
4.1 Ms. Prachi Upadhyay, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Vaibhav Vyas, learned advocate for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court towards the contentions raised in the present petition and has submitted that the petitioner is working in the cadre of Page 5 of 14 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 21:29:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1519/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined Surveyor since 12.11.1981 and prior to Revision of Pay Rules, 1998, the hierarchy of posts of Surveyor, Senior Clerk, and Maintenance Surveyor was different and their pay-scales were also different. She has further submitted that prior to the Revision of Pay Rules 1998, the persons working in the cadre of Surveyor in the pay- scale of Rs. 1200-1800/- were entitled to the first higher grade scale of the post of Senior Clerk, carrying the pay- scale of Rs. 1200-2040, upon completion of 9 years of service. She has further submitted that pursuant to the Revision of Pay Rules, 1998, which was implemented with retrospective effect from 01.01.1996, the pay-scales of the above referred posts namely Surveyor, Senior Clerk and Maintenance Surveyor were revised and merged together into an identical pay-scale of Rs. 4000- 6000 and the pay-scale of the next higher post of Sheristedar was revised to Rs. 4500-7000. She has further submitted that due to the implementation of the Revision of Pay Rules, a situation was created whereby, the persons who were appointed in the year 1987 or thereafter in the cadre of Surveyor would be getting the first higher grade scale of the post of Sirestedar carrying the pay-scale of Rs. 4500-7000, upon completing nine Page 6 of 14 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 21:29:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1519/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined years service on the said post, since they became eligible for the first higher pay-scale only after 1.1.1996, whereas the petitioner, who is admittedly senior to those persons, is getting the pay-scale of Rs. 4500-7000, as the second higher grade scale only upon completion of 24 years of service, instead of Rs. 5000-8000, which he is entitled to get. She has further submitted that the petitioner has made several representations to remove this anomaly. She has further submitted that even the head of the department, having found substance in the grievance of the petitioner, has made detailed recommendation to the authorities of the Government, requesting them to grant the first higher pay-scale of Rs. 4500-7000 to the petitioner and similarly situated persons. She has further submitted that pursuant to the said recommendations, the authorities of the Government resolved to grant the benefit of first higher pay-scale of Rs. 4500-7000 to the persons, who were eligible for the same on or after 01.01.1996. However, it was further resolved that the cases of the persons, who had availed the benefit of first higher grade scale prior to 01.01.1996 should not be re- opened. She has further submitted that once again the head of the department respondent No.3 made a detailed Page 7 of 14 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 21:29:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1519/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined proposal to the authorities of the Government, explaining in detail as to why the benefit of the pay-scale of Rs. 4500-7000 should be granted to the petitioner and other similarly situated persons and recommended to grant the said benefit of the petitioner and similarly situated persons.
4.2 She has further submitted that thereafter, the Government by letter dated 25.08.2009 informed the petitioner that the request of the petitioner for grant of second higher pay-scale of Rs. 5000-8000 cannot be accepted and, therefore, the present petition has been filed as such action of the respondent will certainly create anomaly of pay amongst the similarly situated persons and not only that, the petitioner is more senior and getting less pay and, therefore, she has submitted that considering the facts stated at the bar, it is clear case of discrimination and is required to be considered appropriately.
4.3 She has also submitted that other similarly situated persons, who are junior to the petitioner namely Mr. R.K. Patel is getting higher pay than the present petitioner, who is appointed almost 10 years prior to the Page 8 of 14 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 21:29:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1519/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined appointment of Mr. Patel and, therefore, considering this anomaly, prayer prayed in the present petition is required to be granted. In support of her submissions, she has relied upon the common order dated 28.11.2011 passed by the Court in Special Civil Application No.12541 of 2011 and allied matters and has prayed to allow the present petition.
5.1 Per contra, Ms. Dhwani Tripathi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents-State has drawn the attention of this Court towards the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent and has submitted that the posts namely surveyor, senior clerk, and maintenance surveyor were merged together into Rs. 4,000-6,000 in the year 1996. She has further submitted that before the year 1996, the posts of surveyor, Senior Clerk, and Maintenance Surveyor had different pay scales. She has further submitted that the petitioner originally was recruited in the year 1981 as a surveyor carrying the pay-scale of Rs. 1200-1800; at that time senior clerk was carrying the pay-scale of Rs. 1200-2040 and maintenance surveyor was carrying the pay-scale of Rs. 1320-2040. She has further submitted that as per his relevant pay- Page 9 of 14 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 21:29:28 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1519/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined scale and counting of service, the petitioner had been given second higher grade scale in Rs.4500-125-7000 in the year 2009 vide order dated 20.03.2009 and w.e.f 12.11.2005. She has further submitted that the petitioner was sanctioned second higher grade scale of the post of Shirastedar in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000. She has further submitted that since the posts of surveyor, Senior Clerk, and Maintenance Surveyor were merged together into pay-scale of Rs. 4000-6000, therefore, the petitioner had been given second higher grade pay-scale of Rs. 4500-7000 in the year 2009 w.e.f. the year 2005. She has further submitted that the persons who join in new merged cadre in 1990-91 their pay-scale was decided of Rs. 4000-6000 and, therefore, they are entitled to First higher grade scale of the post of Shirastedar in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000. She has further submitted that the petitioner had received two higher pay-scales in his service. She has further submitted that Government Resolution dated 18.08.2008 clarifies that the cases of the person who have availed the benefit of first higher grade scales prior to 01.01.1996 should not be reopened. In the present case, petitioner had been already granted first higher grade pay-scales in the year 1990 as per his Page 10 of 14 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 21:29:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1519/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined recruitment rules and pay-scales of his joining date and the petitioner had been also granted second higher grade pay-scales w.e.f the year 2005.
5.2 She has also referred to the Chart which is prepared for the comparison of the salary of present petitioner and has submitted that the petitioner - Mr. M.K. Panchal was appointed on 12.11.1981 and Mr. R.K. Patel, who was referred by the petitioner in his petition, who was appointed on 11.01.1991. She has submitted th that after getting benefits of 7 Pay Commission from 01.01.2016, the pay of the petitioner was fixed at Rs.53,600/- and against the same, after getting the th benefit of 7 Pay Commission, Mr. R.K. Patel, the pay of Mr. R.K. Patel was fixed at Rs.50,500/-. Therefore, she has submitted that apparently, Mr. R.K. Patel is getting lesser pay than the present petitioner and, therefore, the say of the petitioner that the petitioner is getting lesser pay than his juniors is not correct. 5.3 In support of her submissions, she has submitted that in the present case, the petitioner has relied upon the common order dated 28.11.2011 passed by the Court in Special Civil Application No.12541 of 2011 and allied Page 11 of 14 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 21:29:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1519/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined matters and has submitted that the Hon'ble Court has considered the prayers of similarly situated persons. She has submitted that the said petitioners belong to different departments and are governed by the Government Resolution dated 10.10.2007 which was challenged by the petitioners of those petitions. In the present case, the petitioner is governed by Government Resolution dated 18.08.2008 and the Clause-6 specifically states that any person who has received first higher great pay before 01.01.1996, those cases cannot be reopened. She has pointed out from the list of Gradation list by which the petitioner has described as seniority list in his Sur-Rejoinder and has submitted that the person listed at Sr. No. 148 has joined the present department by way of transfer from other division and the respondent has not made appointment in the respondent - department in the year 1987. She has further submitted that the person at Sr. No. 148 was originally appointed in the year 1978 and, therefore, may receive higher pay than the present petitioner and, therefore, she has submitted that the present petition is misconceived and is required to be dismissed as it is not maintainable in the eyes of law.
Page 12 of 14 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 21:29:28 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1519/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined 6.1 I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar. I have also considered the relevant aspects of the matter. It clearly transpires that the petitioner is admittedly getting higher pay than Mr RK Patel. The pay of the petitioner is fixed at Rs.53,600/- from 01.01.2016, whereby the pay of Mr. R.K. Patel, who is junior to the petitioner is fixed at Rs.50,500/- as indicated by the learned AGP for the respondent. It is also required to be noted that the person who is mentioned at serial No.148 in the Gradation List is transferred from the other department and was appointed prior to the present petitioner in the year 1978 and, therefore, he might have received higher pay than the present petitioner.
6.2 Considering the common order dated 28.11.2011 cited at the bar by learned advocate for the petitioner passed by this Hon'ble Court in Special Civil Application No.12541 of 2011 and allied matters, it transpires that the facts of that case are clearly different from the facts of the present case. Those petitioners were from the different departments and were governed by the Government Resolution dated 10.10.2007 and the present Page 13 of 14 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 21:29:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1519/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined petitioner is governed by the Government Resolution dated 18.08.2008, whereby Clause 6 specifically prescribes that the persons, who have received first higher grade pay before 01.01.2016, the cases of those persons cannot be reopened and, therefore, from any count, it cannot be said that petitioner is not getting appropriate benefit and considering the Government Resolution dated 18.08.2008, the department has rightly not considered the case of the petitioner by reopening the same, more particularly, in view of the Clause 6 and, therefore, I am of the opinion that there is no substance in the submission made by learned advocate for the petitioner and all the prayers made in the present petition are misconceived as no case is made out on merits by the present petitioner and, therefore, the present petition is required to be dismissed as it is found meritless.
7. In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) DIWAKAR SHUKLA Page 14 of 14 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 21:29:28 IST 2025