Gujarat High Court
Milan K Chudasama vs State Of Gujarat on 1 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8641/2017 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8641 of 2017
==========================================================
MILAN K CHUDASAMA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS MAMTA R VYAS(994) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR PARTH PATEL, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 - State
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 01/10/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, is preferred by the petitioner with the following prayers.
"8(a) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside order dated 27.05.2016 passed by Respondent No.2 for declining the proposal of the petitioner for granting him the benefit of AGP of Rs.7000 with effect from 01.10.2010 and further be pleased to direct respondents to extent the benefit of AGP of Rs.7000 to the petitioner with effect from 01.10.2010 along with arrears with Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 01 22:55:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8641/2017 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined interest from the date he became entitled to till the actual payment is made to the petitioner;
(b) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to direct the respondent authorities to extend the benefit of AGP of Rs.8000 to the petitioner with effect from 01.10.2015 and further be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the same to the petitioner with arrears and interest from the date he became entitled to till the actual payment is made to the petitioner;
(c) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the order dated 27 th May 2016 passed by Respondent No.2 and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to extent the benefit of AGP of Rs.7000 with effect from 01.10.2010 and AGP of Rs.8000 with effect from 01.10.2015 to pay salary accordingly to the petitioner;
(d) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 01 22:55:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8641/2017 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined grant any other relief or pass any other order which the Hon'ble Court may consider as just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case;
(e) costs of the petition be provided for from the respondents jointly and severally;"
2. Heard learned advocates.
3.1 Learned advocate Ms. Vyas for the petitioner has submitted that after following the due process, the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Shantilal Shah Engineering College, Bhavnagar i.e Respondent No.4 on 24.09.2004. The petitioner is possessing the qualification of B.E. (Civil) with First Class degree. As per the Rules, those who are possessing the B.E. degree are entitled for the senior scale after six years and if the employee concerned is possessing master's degree, then he/she would be entitled for senior scale on competition of five years.
3.2 She has further submitted that since the petitioner was appointed on 01.10.2004, he is entitled for senior scale on 01.10.2010 i.e. after competition of six years. Accordingly, he made an application for senior scale which was forwarded Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 01 22:55:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8641/2017 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined to the higher authority.
3.3 She has also submitted that as per the circular of the Government, the procedure for giving benefit of senior scale was stopped for the time being.
3.4 She has further submitted that after obtaining the permission from the Government, the petitioner has enrolled himself for pursuing M.E. degree at Respondent No.4 College in the year 2009. While pursuing the M.E. degree course, the petitioner was transferred to Respondent No.3 Government Engineering College, Bhuj in August-2010. Due to some clashes, the Principal of the College made adverse remarks in the ACR of the petitioner for the period from 14.09.2010 to 31.03.2011. After making the adverse remarks, the Principal retired on 27.06.2011. But due to the adverse remarks, the petitioner is not given senior scale which was due on 01.10.2010. The petitioner made representation to the Principal on 05.07.2011. The same was further submitted to the Joint Director of Education, who, by order dated 08.12.2011, rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner. 3.5 The ACR of the petitioner from the date of appointment till 13.09.2010 was up to the mark, but because of the aforesaid adverse ACR for the period for 14.09.2010 to Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 01 22:55:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8641/2017 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined 31.03.2011, he is not given the senior scale and thereby having the huge financial loss. A reliance is place on the judgment of this Hon'ble Court recorded on Special Civil Application No.8054 of 2020, which was confirmed in Letters Patent Appeal No.318 of 2022 and pointed out that the ACR is adverse only for 26 days for the period upto 01.10.2010. Even for the other benefits also, the ACR is adverse for only six months. Therefore, on the basis of aforesaid judgment, the petitioner is entitled for the first senior scale and requested for the consequential benefits. It is also requested that on the basis of this, he is also entitled for the second senior scale w.e.f. 01.10.2015, with arrears and all consequential benefits. She has submitted that this petition may be allowed.
4. The learned AGP Mr.Patel for the State has vehemently opposed this petition. He has drawn the attention of this Court towards the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of Respondent No.1 and has submitted that since the remarks in the ACR were adverse for the period of 14.09.2010 to 31.03.2011, the petitioner lacks eligibility criteria and therefore, he is not entitled for the senior scale from 01.10.2010. He has submitted that this petition may be dismissed.
Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 01 22:55:05 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8641/2017 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined
5. In response to this, learned advocate Ms.Vyas for the petitioner has relied on the rejoinder and reiterated the averments made in the rejoinder. It is submitted that this petition may be allowed.
6.1 I have heard rival submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties. I have perused the material on record. From the record, this Court finds that the only ground for denying the senior scale to the petitioner is adverse ACR for period from 14.09.2010 to 31.03.2011. The petitioner was appointed vide order dated 24.09.2004 and joined the duty on 01.10.2004. He is entitled for the senior scale after competition of five years on 01.10.2010. However, due to adverse remarks, he is denied the senior scale.
6.2 Looking to the period of adverse remarks and considering the judgment recorded on Special Civil Application No.8054 of 2020 and Letters Patent Appeal No.318 of 2022, the issue is already decided. The period of adverse remarks is only for six months. When the petitioner was entitled on 01.10.2010, the adverse ACR was only for 14.09.2010 to 31.09.2010, which is hardly of sixteen days. Even for the further higher scale, his ACR is adverse only for the period from 01.10.2010 to 31.03.2011, which is only for six months. Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 01 22:55:05 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8641/2017 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined 6.3 At this stage, it would be fruitful to refer to the relevant Para : 7 of the judgment recorded on Special Civil Application No.8054 of 2020, which is as under.
nd "The respondents are directed to give 2 higher pay scale from 27.04.2011 or for such extended a period of time taking into consideration the extended period, for which, he had received adverse remarks in giving effect to the higher pay scale on a subsequent date, five months from the date of 27.04.2011.
Terminal benefits be revised accordingly. Rule is made absolute accordingly."
6.4 In view of above, denying the petitioner for the senior scale is erroneous. Further, the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of AGP of Rs.7000 w.e.f. 01.04.2011 and further senior scale of AGP Rs.8000 w.e.f. 01.04.2016.
7. Having regard to peculiar facts and circumstances in the case and considering the decision of this Court noted above, this petition needs to be allowed and is allowed accordingly. The impugned order dated 27.05.2016 passed by Respondent No.2 denying AGP of Rs.7000 w.e.f. 01.10.2010 Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 01 22:55:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8641/2017 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined and AGP Rs.8000 w.e.f. 01.10.2015 to the petitioner is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to extend the benefit of AGP of Rs.7000 w.e.f. 01.04.2011 and AGP of Rs.8000 w.e.f. 01.04.2016 to the petitioner and pay the arrears, with all consequential benefits, within a period of three months from today.
8. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) M.H. DAVE Page 8 of 8 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 01 22:55:05 IST 2025