Gujarat High Court
Veraval Patan Joint Nagarpalika ... vs Kiranben Jayprakash Prachhak on 17 November, 2021
Bench: Aniruddha P. Mayee
C/LPA/789/2021 ORDER DATED: 17/11/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 789 of 2021
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 634 of 2017
=============================================
VERAVAL PATAN JOINT NAGARPALIKA THROUGH CHIEF OFFICER
Versus
KIRANBEN JAYPRAKASH PRACHHAK
=============================================
Appearance:
MR AMAR D MITHANI(484) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
NIGAM D SONI(9314) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS.URMILA DESAI, AGP for the Respondent State
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.H.VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Date : 17/11/2021
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE)
[1] The present Letters Patent Appeal is filed against the
judgment and order dated 01.07.2021 in Special Civil
Application No.634 of 2017.
[2] Brief facts leading to filing of the present Appeal are
as follows:-
[2.1] The Respondent No.1 was working as a Teacher in
the Bal Mandir, run by the Appellant - Nagar Palika from
the year 1992 till her retirement in the year 2015. It is the
case of the Respondent No.1 that the post of the Teacher
on which she was working was a sanctioned post and she
C/LPA/789/2021 ORDER DATED: 17/11/2021
was given appointment in the pay scale of Rs.1200-1800/-
with a monthly salary of Rs.1200/- vide order dated
24.11.1992 on ad-hoc basis which was renewed from time
to time till 31.12.1996 and thereafter, she was continued
without interruption till her retirement in the year 2015.
The Respondent No.1 herein had made several
representations to the Appellant for regularization of her
service and to grant benefits arising out of such
regularization.
[2.2] The Respondent No.1 after retirement issued a legal
notice to the Appellant herein demanding equality of pay
and difference of monetary benefits as payable under the
5th and 6th Pay Commission recommendations. By its
reply, the Appellant Municipality informed the Respondent
No.1 that as she was a temporary employee and not
appointed in the regular setup, therefore, the benefits of
5th and 6th Pay Commission could not be granted to her.
[3] Being aggrieved, the Respondent No.1 filed Special
Civil Application No.634 of 2017 praying for the following
reliefs:-
"(A) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of
mandamus / certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order
or direction declaring the stand taken by the Nagar Palika
in their reply dated 6.1.2016 relying on the condition of
the Director of Municipalities' letter as illegal, unjust,
arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India and be pleased to set aside the same
and direct the respondents to extend the benefits of
revision of pay to the petitioner from retrospective date
with 12% interest.
(B) Be pleased to declare that the letter of the
Director of Municipalities is to get sanction of the amount
from the State and that cannot be the reason for denying
the equality of pay to the petitioner by the Nagar Palika.
C/LPA/789/2021 ORDER DATED: 17/11/2021
(C) Be pleased to declare that the petitioner was
entitled to get the revision of pay scale as per the Fifth
Pay Commission Recommendations from 1.1.1996 and
from 2006 as per the Sixth Pay Commission
Recommendation from the Nagar Palika and hence, be
pleased to direct the respondent No.3 to pay all arrears to
the petitioner with 12% interest, declaring that the
petitioner is entitled for equal pay for equal work.
(D) xxxx xxxx xxxx
(E) xxxx xxxx xxxx
(F) xxxx xxxx xxxx"
The Appellant Nagar Palika appeared and opposed
the said Special Civil Application.
[4] The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties, by
the impugned order dated 01.07.2021, was pleased to
allow the Special Civil Application of the Respondent No.1
and directed the Appellant Municipality herein to grant the
benefits of 5th and 6th Pay Commission recommendations
and to pay the difference of arrears of pay and retirement
dues calculated on such basis alongwith 9% interest per
annum thereon, if not paid within eight weeks.
[5] Being aggrieved, the Appellant Municipality has filed
the present Letters Patent Appeal.
[6] Heard Mr. Amar D. Mithani, Learned Advocate for the
Appellant and Mr. Nigam D. Soni, Learned Advocate
appearing for the Caveator original petitioner.
[7] This Court has perused the material on record and
taken into consideration the submissions advanced on
C/LPA/789/2021 ORDER DATED: 17/11/2021
behalf of the parties. The Learned Advocate for the
Appellant Municipality admitted the undisputed facts as
enumerated in the impugned order. It was not disputed
that the Respondent No.1 had worked continuously from
1992 till her superannuation in June 2015 and further that
she was also granted pay scale and benefits as per the 4th
Pay Commission recommendations and also paid the
retiral benefits of Gratuity, Provident Fund etc. as has
been paid to the regular employees on the sanctioned
posts on the basis of the pay scale as per the last pay.
This Court is of the opinion that there is no justification
given by the Appellant Municipality for granting the
benefits of the 4th Pay Commission and denying the
Respondent No.1 the benefits of 5th and 6th Pay
Commission. It cannot be overlooked that the Respondent
No.1 has discharged service for more than 23 years and
as such she has been granted all the benefits of regularly
appointed employee on a sanctioned post by the Appellant
Municipality. In this background, it is just and proper that
the learned Single Judge has granted the respondent No.1
the benefits of 5th and 6th Pay Commission
recommendations which she would have been otherwise
entitled to from the date of her retirement. Once, the 4th
Pay Commission recommendations have been granted to
the Respondent No.1, the Appellant Municipality cannot
deny her the benefits of 5th and 6th Pay Commission
recommendations particularly when she has worked
continuously with the Appellant Municipality from 1992 till
her superannuation in June 2015 without any break which
is not disputed.
C/LPA/789/2021 ORDER DATED: 17/11/2021
[8] For the aforesaid reasons and in the peculiar facts
and circumstances of the present case, the present
Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed with no order as to
costs. The impugned order passed by the learned Single
Judge does not need any interference. The benefits as
directed by the impugned order shall be calculated and
paid to the respondent No.1 within six weeks from the
date of receipt of this order failing which, the Appellant
Municipality shall pay 9% interest per annum on such dues
till realization.
(S.H.VORA, J.)
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE,J.)
DHARMENDRA KUMAR
