Bharatbhai Chhaganbhai Vaghela vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 15410 Guj

     C/SCA/10488/2019                              ORDER DATED: 01/10/2021



         IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

       R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10488 of 2019
                              With
        R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12617 of 2019
                              With
        R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13351 of 2019
                              With
        R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11079 of 2019
                              With
        R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16661 of 2019
                              With
        R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16779 of 2019
=============================================
                 BODUBHAI ISHAKBHAI MUNDRA
                             Versus
                      STATE OF GUJARAT
=============================================
Appearance:
MS ASHLESHA M PATEL(6127) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. ROHAN SHAH, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS SEJAL K MANDAVIA(436) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3 (SCA
10488/2019, SCA/12617/2019 AND SCA/16779/2019)
MS. DHARMISTHA RAVAL for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
(SCA/16661/2019, SCA 13351/2019,, AND SCA/11079/2019)
=============================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA

                            Date : 01/10/2021
                          COMMON ORAL ORDER

1) Since the issue involved in the writ petitions is common, the same are decided by the common order.

2) RULE. Learned advocates appearing for the respective parties waive service of notice of rule on their behalf.

3) At the outset, learned advocate Ms. Ashlesha Patel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the order dated 23.01.2018 passed in Special Civil Application No. 6083 of 2017. She has further submitted that the aforesaid judgment is confirmed by the Division Bench vide order dated 24.08.2018 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1101 of 2018 .

      C/SCA/10488/2019                                        ORDER DATED: 01/10/2021



4)     It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners are not extended

the benefits of 6th pay commission only because of the cut-off date. Learned advocate Ms. Patel has submitted that the benefits of 6 th Pay Commission is extended to similarly situated employees, who are appointed prior to the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, whereas, the petitioners are denied such benefits. Such action is discriminated. In support of her submissions, she has placed reliance on the aforesaid judgment.

5) Learned advocates appearing for the respondents are unable to satisfy this Court that the case of the petitioner is not governed by the aforesaid judgment. However, they have submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to the aforesaid benefits as they are appointed after the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988.

6) I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. The judgments, on which the reliance are placed, are also perused.

7) A perusal of the judgment dated 23.01.2018 passed in Special Civil Application No. 6083 of 2017 reveals that the issue, which is raised in the present writ petition, is squarely covered.

8) The said judgment is also confirmed by the Division Bench vide order dated 24.08.2018 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1101 of 2018. The Division Bench has held thus:-

"3. Brief facts of the case are that the present respondents (original petitioners) were appointed between the year 1990 and 1991 and that they have been working under the fourth respondent, Gujarat Maritime Board and its offices, and were also granted the benefits of Resolution dated 17th October, 1988 upon completion of five years and ten years of service. They have also been given the benefit of the Fifth Pay Commission pursuant to the resolution dated 30th March, 1998 passed by the State Government. The State Government has also extended the benefit of the Sixth Pay Commission to the similarly situated employees of the appellants herein, who were also the daily wagers and the effect was given from 1st January, 2006.

4. We have carefully perused the judgment and order

C/SCA/10488/2019 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2021

passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge, after placing reliance on various decisions of this court as well as the decision of a Division Bench of this court rendered on 23.9.2015 in Letters Patent Appeal No.1230 of 2015, entertained the writ petition and directed the present appellants to grant the benefits as prayed for in the writ petition. It is undeniable fact that the respondents herein are appointed between the year 1990 and 1991 and that they have also been paid the benefit of the Fifth Pay Commission. The employees who are appointed prior to the Resolution dated 17th October, 1988, have already been granted the benefit Sixth Pay Commission. Thus, the present appellants who are subsequently appointed in the year 1990 and 1991 and are similarly situated to the employees appointed prior to 17.10.1988 cannot be discriminated in conferring the benefit of Sixth Pay Commission in wake of the fact they are already paid the benefit of Fifth Pay Commission.

9) Thus, the present petitioners, who are also similarly situated to the employees of the writ petitions being Special Civil Application No. 6083 of 2017, cannot be denied the benefits of 6th Pay Commission, merely because they are appointed after the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988.

10) In this view of the matter, the writ petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to extend the benefits of 6 th Pay Commission to the petitioners and pass necessary orders within the period of three months from the date of receipt of the order of this Court. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

11) Registry to place a copy of the writ petition in each of the connected matters.

(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) VISHAL MISHRA