Mahendrasinh Mangalsinh Jadeja vs Gujarat Maritime Board
2021 Latest Caselaw 15412 Guj

       C/SCA/8662/2021                               ORDER DATED: 01/10/2021




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8662 of 2021

================================================================
                         MAHENDRASINH MANGALSINH JADEJA
                                     Versus
                             GUJARAT MARITIME BOARD
================================================================
Appearance:
MS HARSHAL N PANDYA(3141) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
NOTICE SERVED BY DS(5) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
MR RONAK RAVAL, AGP for the Respondent No.4
================================================================
     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA

                                 Date : 01/10/2021
                                  ORAL ORDER

It is submitted by the learned advocate Ms.Sejal Mandavia that she has instructions to appear on behalf of the respondent nos.2 and 3-Gujarat Maritime Board.

Registry shall accept her vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent- Gujarat Maritime Board as and when it is filed.

1. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.

2. Rule.

3. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for extending the benefit of recommendation of 7th Pay Commission and revised pay- scale with effect from 01.01.2016.

4. At the outset, learned advocate Ms.Harshal Pandya appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the issue is squarely covered by various decisions of this Court. She has placed reliance on the order dated 26.10.2018 passed in Special Civil Application No.3756 of 2018, which

C/SCA/8662/2021 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2021

is confirmed by the Division Bench vide order dated 24.01.2019 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.231 of 2019. She has submitted that though the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of 7 th Pay Commission, only because no approval has been sought by the respondent-Board from the State Authority. She has submitted that the benefit of 6th Pay Commission is also paid to the petitioners and the writ petitioners claiming the same being Special Civil Application No.11339 of 2017 was already allowed in their favour by the order dated 12.04.2019 and accordingly, the petitioners have been granted the benefit of pay as per the 6 th Pay Commission. Thus, she has submitted that once the petitioners are granted the benefit of 6th Pay Commission, the respondent-Board is not required to take further approval from the State for extending the benefit of 7th Pay Commission.

4.1. Further, reliance is also placed on the resolution dated 24.05.2018 issued by the State Government with regard to extending the benefit of 7 th Pay Commission to the employees of the respondent-Board. Thus, she has submitted that the said resolution is required to be implemented in the case of the present petitioners without seeking any approval.

5. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate appearing for the respondent-Board has submitted that looking to the financial restrained of the Board, it is necessary to take approval from the State Authorities and hence, there is no Government Resolution applicable to the Board to extend the benefit of 6 th and 7th Pay Commission to those employees, who are appointed after 17.10.1988. Thus, she has submitted that the petitioners are not entitled for the benefit of 7th Pay Commission.

6. Learned AGP Mr.Ronak Raval has submitted that the State has already issued a Government Resolution dated 24.05.2018 clarifying its

C/SCA/8662/2021 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2021

position and hence, the fixation of 7 th Pay Commission is required to be done as per the provisions of the aforesaid Government Resolution.

7. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. The relevant Government Resolutions are also perused.

8. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were paid the benefit of 6 th Pay Commission pursuant to the order dated 12.04.2019 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.1139 of 2017. The said order has become final and now the issue with regard to payment of 7 th Pay Commission has cropped up and it appears that the same is not being granted only because there is no approval sent by the Board or even if it is sent, the State has not approved it. In a similar issue, the Coordinate Bench vide order dated 25.09.2019 passed in Special Civil Application No.12046 of 2019 has directed the respondents to extend the benefit of 6 th and 7th Pay Commission.

9. The aforesaid order was subject matter of challenge before the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.510 of 2020. By the order dated 08.09.2020, the Division Bench has held thus:-

"3. Ms. Mandavia, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant Board has invited our attention to the resolution dated 19th September 2017 issued by the State Government in context with the employees of the Gujarat Maritime Board, more particularly, Clause 3 of the condition to be complied with by the Board, which reads thus:

"The implementation of this pay revision shall have to be done by the Gujarat Maritime Board from 1st January 2016 as per Gujarat State Service (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2016 and subject to its provisions as per scale to scale basis. Its actual implementation shall be effected from 1st August 2017. With regard to the amount of difference of pay from 1st January 2016to 31st July 2017, its payment shall have to be done when the decision is taken for the employees of the State Government and payment shall be done accordingly."

4. According to the resolution issued by the State Government referred to above, more particularly, clause 3, the benefits of the 7th Pay Commission

C/SCA/8662/2021 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2021

with effect from 1st January 2016 to 31st July 2017 would be on scale to scale basis. However, the actual effect shall be given from 1st August 2017. Ms. Pandya, the learned counsel appearing for the original writ applicant would submit that the Board may be directed to effect so far as the 7th Pay Commission is concerned from 1st August 2017. She would submit that as and when the issue with regard to the time period between 1st January 2016 and 31st July 2017 is resolved between the Board and the State Government, an appropriate claim may be put forward at an appropriate time.

5. It appears that the circular referred to above by us dated 19th September 2017 was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge.

6 In such circumstances referred to above, while disposing of this appeal, we modify the order passed by the learned Single Judge to the extent that the petitioner shall be entitled to the 7th Pay Commission recommendations with effect from 1st August 2017. The Board shall, accordingly, extend the benefits at the earliest."

10. With regard to contention raised by the Board for taking approval, I may in profit to incorporate the observation of the order dated 24.04.2021 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.231 of 2019 by the Division Bench. The Division Bench in similarly situated set of facts has observed thus:-

"We find that learned Single Judge has correctly in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, after considering the entire record, directed the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioners for granting the benefits of 6 th Pay Commission and 7th Pay Commission and grant the same with arrears.

The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the Maritime Board that the employees have not made any proposal for getting the benefits pales into insignificance since the learned Single Judge has categorically directed the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioners and grant the benefits with arrears without any insistence on the petitioners making any proposal for getting benefits. We further find nothing unusual in the learned Single Judge granting a time-bound direction for the implementation of the directions given in the proceedings in exercise of his discretionary powers. The argument made by the counsel for the appellant-Maritime Board regarding interest being awarded is required to be turned down. Learned Single Judge considering the facts of the case in exercise of his discretionary powers, in the event of the benefits as directed not being paid to the petitioners after the expiry of prescribed time limit, directed payment of interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the petition. We do not think it fit to interfere with the said findings of the learned Single Judge.

C/SCA/8662/2021 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2021

11. Thus, the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge was confirmed. However, the only aspect, which was clarified by the Division Bench is that the petitioners will be entitled to 7 th Pay Commission with effect from 01.01.2016. Thus the present petitioners, who are similarly situated and form the same class of those petitioner, the respondents are directed to extend the benefit of 7th Pay Commission to them with effect from 01.01.2016, however arrears from 01.01.2006 to 31.07.2017 be paid when it is resolved between the Board and State. Necessary orders shall be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the writ of this order.

12. It is clarified that, if the benefit is not extended within the stipulated time, it would carry interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the petition.

13. The present petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) ABHISHEK