Gujarat High Court
Brahmabhatt Prafulchandra ... vs State Of Gujarat on 3 August, 2021
Bench: A.S. Supehia
C/SCA/6162/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/08/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6162 of 2019
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA Sd/-
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ? NO
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ? NO
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution NO
of India or any order made thereunder ?
================================================================
BRAHMABHATT PRAFULCHANDRA MOTILAL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================================
Appearance:
for the Petitioner(s) No. 10,11,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
MR SP MAJMUDAR(3456) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,10,11,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
MR. HJ KARATHIYA(7012) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,10,11,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
MR DHARMESH DEVNANI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
Date : 03/08/2021
ORAL JUDGMENT
(1) RULE. Mr. Dharmesh Devnani, learned Assistant
Government Pleader, appears and waives service of
notice of rule on behalf of the respondent
authorities.
(2) The present petition has been filed by the
petitioners seeking a direction directing the
respondent authorities to grant the benefit of the
first higher pay-scale to them from the dates on
which they became eligible and not from the date on
C/SCA/6162/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/08/2021
which they had cleared the Land Records Qualifying
(LAQ) Examination with all the consequential
benefits, including interest.
(3) At the outset learned advocate Mr.Majmudar
appearing for the petitioners has submitted that
the issue is squarely covered by various decisions
of the Apex Court as well as this Court. He has
particularly placed reliance on the order dated
05.10.2016 passed in Special Civil Application
No.18493 of 2015. Learned advocate Mr.Majmudar,
while placing reliance on the chart at Annexure-A
has submitted that it is not in dispute that the
LRQ Examination, which is a prerequisite condition,
for being entitled to higher pay-scale was held in
the case of the petitioners from 30.04.2001 to
06.05.2001 and they cleared the same in their first
attempt on 22.04.2002, however, though the
petitioners were entitled on their respective dates
as mentioned in the Chart (at Annexure-A), the
higher pay-scales were granted from the date of
declaration of the result of the LRQ examination
i.e. 22.04.2002. Thus, he has submitted that the
petitioners cannot be put to a loss for the
inaction of the respondent authorities in not
holding the examination in time i.e. when they
became eligible.
(4) Learned Assistant Government Pleader
Mr.Devnani has submitted that the petitioners are
C/SCA/6162/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/08/2021
entitled to the higher pay-scale only after they
clear LRQ examination, which they cleared on
22.04.2002 and accordingly, the higher pay-scale
has been precisely granted to them from the date of
declaration of the result. It is submitted that
thus, no interference is required.
(5) I have considered the rival submissions
advanced by the learned advocates appearing on
behalf of the respective parties.
(6) The facts are not in dispute. However, the
only issue which requires consideration is whether
the petitioners would be entitled to higher pay-
scale from the date of their entitlement or from
the date of the declaration of result of LRQ
examination. The petitioners have become eligible
for the higher pay-scale prior to the declaration
of the result, however, they are granted such
benefits from the date of declaration of the result
of LRQ examination w.e.f. 22.04.2002.
(7) The Coordinate Bench in the order dated
05.10.2016 passed in Special Civil Application
No.18493 of 2015, in an identical issue, after
considering the decision of the Apex Court in the
case of K.K.Gohil vs. State of Gujarat, (2015) 9
S.C.C. 652 and the decision in the case of Snehlata
vs. State of Gujarat, Special Civil Application
No.324 of 2010 has held thus:
C/SCA/6162/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/08/2021
"4. The grievance of the petitioners is that they
ought to have been given the benefit of pay-scale
when they completed the requisite number of years
in the service and not from the date of passing of
examination because between 2001 and 2011, no
examination was held and because of non-holding of
the examination by the authorities, although they
had became eligible to get the higher pay-scale,
they were deprived of. It is the submission that
for the fault and inaction on part of the
authorities, they could not have been penalised.
5. The decision of the Supreme Court in K.K.Gohil
Vs State of Gujarat [(2015) 9 SCC 652], laid down
that in terms of Government Resolution dated 16th
August, 1994, the higher grade scale granted to the
employees who have completed nine years of service
to be withdrawn in terms of the conditions of the
Resolution only, where the employees fails to pass
departmental examination. Referring to Circular
dated 24th November, 2004 envisaging the conducting
of departmental examination in time and further
taking note of the fact that in accordance with
Government Order, the departmental examination was
not organised during the eligibility period for
getting higher pay-scale, such benefit could not
have been stalled or withheld on such ground. The
appellant of the said case was held entitled to be
paid the higher pay-scale even without passing the
departmental examination which was not conducted.
5.1 Another decision of this Court in Snehlata V.
Shah Vs State of Gujarat being Special Civil
Application No.324 of 2010 and allied petitions
decided on 18th February, 2010 could be
successfully relied on. Paragraph 6 of the said
judgment reflected the controversy which is similar
to one involved in this case and in final paragraph
7, the petitioners of those cases were held
entitled to the higher grade scaled with
consequential benefits.
6. Given the aforesaid facts of the case of the
petitioners and the position of law emerging by
applying the aforesaid decisions, the petitioners
could not have been denied the benefit of higher
grade scale at the stage when it became due to them
on the ground of non-passing of the LRQ
Examination, which was undisputedly not taken
during the eligibility period of petitioners.
Therefore in terms of the ratio of the aforesaid
decisions in K.K. Gohil (supra) and Snehlata V.
Shah (supra), the petitioners become entitled to
the benefits."
C/SCA/6162/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/08/2021
(8) The Coordinate Bench has held that the
employees cannot be denied higher pay-scale at the
stage, when it became due to them on the ground of
not passing of the LRQ examination, which was
undisputedlly not taken during the eligibility
period. The petitioners cannot be made to suffer
for the inaction of the respondent authorities in
not holding the LRQ examination.
(9) Thus, since the issue is laid quietus by the
Apex Court as well as the Coordinate Bench of this
Court, the action of the respondent authorities in
fixing the higher pay-scale of the petitioners from
the date of declaration of result of the LRQ
examination, is hereby declared as illegal. The
respondent authorities are directed to fix and
grant the higher pay-scale from the dates of
eligibility of the petitioners, as mentioned in the
Chart annexed at Annexure-A in the petition.
Accordingly, the pay fixation shall also be carried
out by the respondent authorities. Appropriate
orders in terms of the directions issued by this
Court shall be passed within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of the present
order.
(10) The petition is allowed accordingly. RULE is
made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
Sd/- .
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
Bhavesh-[PPS]*
