Gujarat High Court
Ketan M. Pandya vs Jetpur Navagadh Nagarpalika on 3 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9680/2014 ORDER DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9680 of 2014
==========================================================
KETAN M. PANDYA & ANR.
Versus
JETPUR NAVAGADH NAGARPALIKA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS TEJAL K SHAH(2719) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MS. SURBHI BHATI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4,5
MR BHAVESH P TRIVEDI(2731) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR RR TRIVEDI(941) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 03/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present petition is filed for seeking the following reliefs:
"A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions directing the respondent-authorities to give benefits of 6th Pay Commission to the petitioners (as per their applications dated 10.01.2014 (at ANNEXURE-J (Colly.) hereto) and to grant all consequential benefits to the present petitioners alongwith arrears/difference of salary with interest and may further be pleased to quash and set aside impugned order/communication dated 03.02.2014 (at Annexure-K (Colly.) hereto);Page 1 of 18 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 08 23:07:00 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9680/2014 ORDER DATED: 03/07/2025 undefined (B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent-Nagarpalika to make the petitioners permanent w.e.f. 01.01.2004 as per order of Hon'ble Tribunal dated 06.03.2004 (at ANNEXURE-A hereto) and to fix the pay scale of the petitioners by giving increments and other benefits as are available to permanent employees and to pay the petitioners accordingly as per the applications of petitioners dated 31.01.2014 (at ANNEXURE-H (Colly.) hereto) and per legal as notice issued by the petitioners on 12.03.2013 (at ANNEXURE-G hereto);
(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions directing the respondent-Nagarpalika procedure petitioners permanent set- up; to do appropriate for absorbing on the sanctioned (D) During the pendency and final disposal of the present petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to give benefits of 6th Pay Commission to the petitioners and to grant all consequential benefits along with arrears/difference of salary with interest and to revise the scale pay and to give increments to the petitioners; (E) Pass any such other and/or further orders that may be thought just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of Page 2 of 18 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 08 23:07:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9680/2014 ORDER DATED: 03/07/2025 undefined the present case;
27(E) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus of any other appropriate writ, order or directions to the respondent's to kindly quashed and set aside the order dated 27.11.2024 here, it is marked and annexed as ANNEXURE:N to this petition, which was rejection order is passed by the Respondent No.5 after such a long leaps of period, here I have also marked and annexed the Government Resolution dated 3.8.2004, here it is marked as ANNEXURE:O to this petition.
2. Brief facts of the case as stated in the present petition are are as under:
2.1 The respondent Nagarpalika invited applications for the post of Clerks and Peons. It is the case of the petitioners in this petition that the petitioners have applied for the said posts. It is submitted that interviews of the petitioners was also conducted. That after following due procedure, the petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 were appointed as "Clerk" on 03.06.1989 and 05.04.1989 with the respondent-Nagarpalika.
Thereafter, petitioners filed a Reference being Reference I.T. No.24 of 1995 before the Industrial Tribunal with a prayer to make them regular and permanent and to pay Page 3 of 18 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 08 23:07:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9680/2014 ORDER DATED: 03/07/2025 undefined them regular pay salary as per norms and other benefits from the date of appointment. The said reference came to be allowed and the Tribunal directed the respondent
-Nagarpalika to appoint the petitioners on the post of Recovery Clerks and to make them permanent w.e.f. 01.01.2004 and to pay them minimum pay scale and other benefits from 01.01.2004 and it was further ordered to pay them difference of salary from 01.01.2004. 2.2 It is further the case of the petitioners in this petition that respondent-Nagarpalika challenged the aforesaid order of Tribunal by preferring a writ petition being Special Civil Application No.9833 of 2004 before this Court. It is the case of the petitioners in this petition that the said petition came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated 13.12.2012 and the order of Hon'ble Tribunal came to be confirmed. Considering the weak financial condition of the respondent-Nagarpalika, the petitioners executed affidavits waiving 50% of arrears of difference in salary. Respondent-Nagarpalika passed order for implementing the orders of the Tribunal and this Hon'ble Court and further ordered for making payment to the petitioners.
Page 4 of 18 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 08 23:07:00 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9680/2014 ORDER DATED: 03/07/2025 undefined 2.3 It is further the case of the petitioners in this petition that internal auditor of respondent Nagarpalika addressed Chief Officer a letter to respondent-Nagarpalika inter alia fixing the pay scale of the petitioners as Rs.3050/-. Thereafter the petitioners filed an application before respondent-Nagarpalika to give them increments and other benefits. That on 04.03.2013, the respondent- Nagarpalika informed the petitioner No. 1 that the Hon'ble Tribunal has only ordered Nagarpalika to put the petitioners on minimum pay scale and to give them minimum pay and there is no specific direction from the Hon'ble Tribunal to give increments to petitioners. It is further the case of the petitioners in this petition that the petitioners gave legal advocate notice to respondent- Nagarpalika and it was requested to treat the workmen petitioners as permanent on their posts and to fix their pay scale afresh and to give all the benefits as are being given to other identically situated co-workers namely J.R. Vyas and P.H. Gida. Petitioners filed an application before the respondent-Nagarpalika and requested to give them due increments. It is further the case of the petitioners in this petition that respondent- Page 5 of 18 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 08 23:07:00 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9680/2014 ORDER DATED: 03/07/2025 undefined Nagarpalika sought an opinion from respondent No.4 with regard to granting of increments to the petitioners. Petitioners made an application to Chief Officer of respondent-Nagarpalika and requested to give them benefits of 6th Pay Commission. Internal Auditor of respondent- Nagarpalika i.e. respondent No.3 informed that as per Condition No.7 of order of Regional Director, the benefits of 6th Pay Commission are available only to the employees of permanent set-up and as the appointment of the petitioner is not made in permanent set-up, the petitioners are not entitled for getting the th benefit of 6 Pay Commission. Hence the present petition has been preferred.
3. Heard Ms. Tejal Shah, learned advocate for the petitioners, Mr R.R. Trivedi, learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Ms. Surbhi Bhati, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 - State.
4.1 Ms. Tejal Shah, learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that though the petitioners are th entitled to get the benefits of 6 Pay Commission, the same is not given to them and, therefore, the present Page 6 of 18 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 08 23:07:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9680/2014 ORDER DATED: 03/07/2025 undefined th petition is filed to get 6 Pay Commission along with arrears and difference of salary with interest. She has submitted that the petitioners are working from the year 1989 at the post of clerk with the respondent Nagarpalika. She has further submitted that the petitioners have applied for the said post and in view of the interview of the petitioners, which was conducted by the respondent authority after following due procedure, the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were appointed as clerks on 03.06.1989 and 05.04.1989 with the respondent- Nagarpalika. Thereafter, on 06.03.2004, the petitioners have filed reference being Reference I.T. No.24 of 1995 before the Industrial Tribunal with a prayer to make them regular and permanent and pay them regular pay salary as per norms and other benefits from the date of appointment. The said reference was allowed by the Tribunal by directing the respondent-Nagarpalika to appoint the petitioners on the post on of Recovery Clerks and to make them permanent w.e.f. 01.01.2004 and to pay them minimum pay scale and other benefits from 01.01.2004. She has further submitted that the respondent Nagarpalika challenged that order by way of petition being Special Civil Application No.9833 of 2004 Page 7 of 18 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 08 23:07:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9680/2014 ORDER DATED: 03/07/2025 undefined before this Court and the same came to be dismissed by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 13.12.2012 by confirming the order of Tribunal.
4.2 She has further submitted that the respondent Nagarpalika asked the petitioners to execute affidavits on 13.01.2013 waiving 50% of arrears of difference in salary due to weak financial condition of the respondent Nagarpalika. She has further submitted that in the meantime, the respondent Nagarpalika passed order for implementing the orders of the Tribunal and this Court and further ordered for making payment to the petitioners. Accordingly, pay scale of the petitioners is fixed to Rs.3050/- by the respondent Nagarpalika. She has further submitted that the petitioners filed an application before respondent Nagarpalika in March, 2013 to pay the increments. She has further submitted that on 04.03.2013, the respondent Nagarpalika informed the petitioner No.1 that the Tribunal has only ordered Nagarpalika to put the petitioners on minimum pay scale and to give them minimum pay and there is no specific direction from the Tribunal to give increments to the petitioners. She has further submitted that the Page 8 of 18 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 08 23:07:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9680/2014 ORDER DATED: 03/07/2025 undefined petitioners gave legal advocate notice to respondent Nagarpalika through their advocate for fixation of pay scale afresh and to give all the benefits as are being given to other identically situated co-workers namely J.R. Vyas and P.H. Gida. She has further submitted that the petitioners have filed an application before the respondent Nagarpalika again on 31.01.2014 and requested to give them due increments. In February, 2013, the respondent Nagarpalika sought an opinion from respondent No.4 with regard to granting of increments to the petitioners. She has further submitted that in February, 2014, the Internal Auditor of respondent Nagarpalika i.e. respondent No.3 informed that as per Condition No.7 of order of Regional Director, the benefits th of 6 Pay Commission are available only to the employees of permanent set-up and as the appointments of the petitioners are not made in permanent set-up, the th petitioners are not entitled for getting the benefit of 6 Pay Commission. She has relied on order dated 12.09.2011 passed by the Regional Director, Municipality. 4.3 She has further submitted that there are many vacant posts of clerks and peons on sanctioned Page 9 of 18 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 08 23:07:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9680/2014 ORDER DATED: 03/07/2025 undefined permanent set-up, on which the petitioners may be absorbed and, therefore, she has submitted that she has filed the present petition to absorb the petitioners in permanent set up. Hence, she has prayed to allow the present petition.
5.1 Per contra, Mr R.R. Trivedi, learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has opposed the submissions made at the bar by learned advocate for the petitioners and has contended that internal auditor of the Municipality informed that as per the condition No. 7 of the order of Regional Director of Municipality th benefit of 6 Pay Commission is available only to the employees who are appointed in permanent set up of the Municipality and he has submitted that the petitioners are not appointed in permanent set up and, therefore, th the benefits of 6 Pay Commission cannot be extended to them. He has further submitted that regarding contention about the Reference, which is allowed by the Industrial Tribunal, whereby the Tribunal has held that the petitioners are entitled for only minimum salary and the order of said reference is not challenged by the petitioner and they have accepted the same, but municipality has Page 10 of 18 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 08 23:07:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9680/2014 ORDER DATED: 03/07/2025 undefined challenged the same before this Court by way of Special Civil Application No.9833 of 2004, whereby this Court has observed that since the Tribunal has granted minimum pay scale, therefore, the High Court will not interfere in the said order of Tribunal. Hence, as per th said order, it cannot be said that benefits of 6 Pay Commission can be extended to the petitioners. 5.2 He has further submitted that the Tribunal has granted them minimum wages/pay scale and has not passed any order to pay salary at par with the permanent employees and, therefore, he has submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to get any benefits th of 6 Pay Commission. He has further submitted that the case of the petitioners cannot equate co-workers namely J.R. Vyas and P.H. Gida. There is vast difference between relief granted to those persons and petitioners. He has further submitted that the respondent Municipality has correctly interpreted the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has in clear terms stated that the petitioners are entitled only for minimum pay scale and those observations are reiterated by this Court also. He has further submitted that the internal auditor of Page 11 of 18 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 08 23:07:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9680/2014 ORDER DATED: 03/07/2025 undefined the Municipality has raised objection on the basis of the order of the Director of Municipality and unless Director th of Municipality grants permission benefits of 6 Pay Commission, the same cannot be granted because for the same purpose also, necessary grant is also required to be released by the concerned authority and, therefore, since th petitioners are not entitled for benefits of 6 Pay Commission and, therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
5.3 He has further submitted that for the purpose of absorption of the petitioners on empty posts also, the orders are required to be passed by Director of Municipalities and Municipality on its own is not entitled to absorb petitioners on vacant posts. Not only this, if any posts are vacant then Municipality is supposed to fill it up by regular employment after following recruitment Rules. He has further submitted that as per the order passed by this Court, additional affidavit is also filed, last regular recruitment on the post of clerk was undertaken by the municipality in year 1995. He has further submitted that lastly on 10.11.2022, the Municipality has sent proposal to Regional Commissioner Page 12 of 18 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 08 23:07:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9680/2014 ORDER DATED: 03/07/2025 undefined to grant permission to fill up 10 post of clerks-cum- sanitary inspector, Typist, etc. 5.4 He has submitted that considering this aspect and considering the materials available on record, it transpires that the petitioners were appointed as daily wager for fixed period of 3 months on contractual basis in the year 1989. He has further submitted that if the Resolution dated 05.06.1989 of Staff Selection Committee is perused, whereby it specifically refers to daily wager on contract basis. Nowhere it is for the purpose of regular recruitment. He has further submitted that in the case of co-workers referred in the petition, the Industrial Tribunal has given awards and it has been implemented by the Municipality. In those cases, the Industrial Tribunal has specifically granted regular pay scale i.e. regularization of services with all consequential benefits. While in the case of petitioner only minimum of regular pay scale is granted and, therefore, the other awards were altogether different award and those workmen were appointed in octroi branch as naka clerk and, therefore, the case of the present petitioners cannot be equated with those cases. In view of the above, he Page 13 of 18 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 08 23:07:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9680/2014 ORDER DATED: 03/07/2025 undefined has prayed to dismiss the present petition.
6. Ms. Surbhi Bhati, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.3 to 5 - State has supported the contentions raised by Mr. R.R. Trivedi, learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and has further indicated that pursuant to the proposal received from the respondent Municipality, the proposal was forwarded to the Commissioner of Municipality by the Regional Commissioner of Municipality for regularization of certain posts and also for consideration of the case of the present petitioners in appropriate manner. The said communication is made in the month of September, 2024, which was rejected by the Director of Municipality by order dated 27.11.2024. The said fact is also brought on record by seeking amendment in the prayer by the petitioners and accordingly, prayers were also amended by the petitioners and, therefore, she has submitted that the authorities have not considered the proposal received from the respondent Municipality after considering all the relevant aspects regarding the necessity of set up, the procedure of the recruitment of such employees, financial burden, etc. and, therefore, she Page 14 of 18 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 08 23:07:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9680/2014 ORDER DATED: 03/07/2025 undefined has submitted that no interference is required to be called for as no relief can be granted to the present petitioners considering the contentions raised by her as well as contentions raised by Mr R.R. Trivedi, learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 7.1 I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar by the respective parties. It transpires that the petitioners were appointed in the year 1989. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have been working with the Municipality in the year 1989 as a clerk, but a reference has been filed before the Industrial Tribunal, whereby the Tribunal has allowed that reference by granting the benefits to the petitioners from 01.01.2004 and has directed to grant minimum pay scale to the present petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners have not challenged that order and now, it is case of the petitioners that they are serving since the year 1989. That order has been challenged by the respondent- Municipality before this Court by way of Special Civil Application No.9833 of 2004, whereby also, this Hon'ble Court while dismissing the petition of respondent Municipality on 13.12.2012 has observed in paragraph 2.1 Page 15 of 18 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 08 23:07:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9680/2014 ORDER DATED: 03/07/2025 undefined as under:
"2.1. The petitioner - Nagarpalika resisted the reference by filing writing statement. The Tribunal, vide judgment and order dated 6.3.2004, directed the petitioner-Nagarpalika to appoint the respondentsworkmen, on the post of Recovery Clerk from 1.1.2004 and pay all benefits available to them as also the arrears for the difference in pay scale from 1.1.2004. Hence, this petition."
7.2 Considering the same and considering the fact that thereafter, the proposal is also forwarded to the Director of Municipality, it cannot be said that the respondent authority has committed any error in not granting the th benefits of 6 Pay Commission to the present petitioners after considering the case of other co-workers namely J.R. Vyas and P.H. Gida, whose cased were considered by this Court by directing the municipality to regularize the service of those employees and, therefore, the facts of those cases are different from the facts of the present case whereby this Court has not considered the case of the petitioners for regularization of service or for giving benefit from their initial appointment in the year 1989. In fact, the Tribunal has considered the case of the petitioners for minimum pay scale from 01.01.2004 and Page 16 of 18 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 08 23:07:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9680/2014 ORDER DATED: 03/07/2025 undefined this Court has also considered that aspect while dismissing the petition filed by the respondent Municipality and, therefore, that direction has become final. Therefore, I found that there is no impropriety or th infirmity in not granting the benefit of 6 Pay Commission to the present petitioners by the respondent namely Municipality as well as State Government in the facts and circumstances of the present case, more particularly, considering the order passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, which was confirmed by this Court. In overall fact of the case, I found no merit in the present petition and, therefore, the present petition is required to be dismissed.
7.3 However considering the fact that petitioners have been rendering their services since the year 1989, it is open for the petitioners to make necessary fresh representation before the respondent authority more particularly Municipality as well as State Government to consider their case sympathetically to grant all the benefits, which are given to the permanent employees though the petitioners were initially appointed as daily wager, however, considering the length of service, the Page 17 of 18 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 08 23:07:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9680/2014 ORDER DATED: 03/07/2025 undefined Municipal Authority may consider the case of the petitioners appropriately but in accordance with law, if it is permissible and the State Government may also look into the matter and if permissible, consider the case of the petitioners appropriately if such proposal is received from the Municipality.
8. With the above observations, the present petition is found meritless and hence, the present petition is required to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) DIWAKAR SHUKLA Page 18 of 18 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 08 23:07:00 IST 2025