Gujarat High Court
Patel Niketkumar Shamalbhai vs State Of Guajrat on 1 April, 2022
Bench: Biren Vaishnav
C/SCA/16444/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/04/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16444 of 2021
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16521 of 2021
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16528 of 2021
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
PATEL NIKETKUMAR SHAMALBHAI & 17 other(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUAJRAT & 2 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR GAURAV CHUDASAMA(5660) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
MR.KRUTIK PARIKH, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR.H.S.MUNSHAW, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 3
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
Date : 01/04/2022
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1. On the direction of this Court, learned advocate
Mr.H.S.Munshaw appears for respondent no.3 in
C/SCA/16444/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/04/2022
Special Civil Application Nos.16444 of 2021 and
16521 of 2021.
2. RULE returnable forthwith. Mr.Krutik Parikh
learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule on
behalf of the respondent State.
3. With the consent of learned advocates for the
respective parties, the petitions are taken up for
final hearing.
4. The common prayer made in these petitions is that
the petitioners are entitled to pay scale of Rs.5200-
20200/- in accordance with the condition no.12 of
the appointment order.
5. Mr.Gaurav Chudasama learned advocate for the
petitioner relies on an order passed by this Court in
Special Civil Application No. 16180 of 2018 and
allied matter. The relevant paragraph of the said
order reads as under:
"6) It is not disputed that the issue is squarely
covered by the of judgment dated 16.10.2019
passed in Special Civil Application No. 20873 of
2015. This Court in the said judgment has held
C/SCA/16444/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/04/2022
thus:-
6. In the present case, the undisputed fact
remains that the petitioners are appointed vide
orders dated 03.07.2010 in view of the policy
dated 15.04.2010. The condition No.12 of the
appointment order, specifically narrates that
after completion of 2 years of service as Vidhya
Sahayak, they will be placed in the pay-scale of
Rs.5200-20200. This condition has been
incorporated in their appointment orders in
view of the condition No.13 of the original
policy/Government Resolution dated
03.04.2010, by which the State Government
has introduced the policy appointing the Vidhya
Sahayaks.
7. Thus, the services of the petitioners are
governed by the conditions incorporated in
their appointment orders. Despite the aforesaid
policy as well as appointment orders, the State
Government did not place them in the regular
pay-scale of Rs.5200-20200 in view of the
subsequent resolution dated 27.04.2011, which
can be termed as an illegal and arbitrary
action.
8. It is pertinent to note that the Director of
Education vide communication dated 20th
September 2014, addressed to all the
concerned District Primary Education Officers,
had specifically called for the information about
the Vidhya Sahayaks, who are appointed prior
to the issuance of resolution dated 27.04.2011
are still left out of being regularized.
Thereafter, in other districts the Vidhya
Sahayaks were placed in the regular pay-scale
after completion of 2 years of service by
various orders dated 12.11.2014, one of which
is placed at Annexure-G. Thus, the petitioners
cannot be discriminated due to the remissness
of the respondents no.3 and 4 in carrying out
necessary exercise in their district by not
C/SCA/16444/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/04/2022
placing them in the pay-scale of Rs.5200-20200
after completion of 2 years of service.
9. A perusal of the resolution dated 24.04.2011
reveals that vide condition No.14, the State
Government has decided to place such
Vidhyasahayaks after completion of 5 years of
service. The resolution dated 27.04.2011
cannot be made applicable to the petitioners
since they are appointed in view of the
resolution dated 15.04.2010 and their service
conditions are governed by the same. The
resolution dated 27.04.2011 can only be made
applicable prospectively to those Vidhya
Sahayaks, who are appointed pursuant to it.
Unless it is specifically provided in the
resolution dated 27.04.2011 that it will have
retrospective effect and the appointments made
pursuant to the former resolution dated
15.04.2010 will be governed by the same, the
respondents cannot deny the benefits arising
out of the resolution dated 15.04.2010.
Furthermore, it is not disputed that the
resolution dated 15.04.2010 is implemented in
other districts.
10. In this view of the matter, the petitioners
cannot be discriminated and be denied the
benefit of regular pay-scale after completion of
2 years of service as envisaged in their
appointment orders as well as the policy dated
15.04.2010. The respondents are hereby
directed to place the petitioners in the regular
payscale of Rs.5200-20200 after completion of
2 years of service from the date of their
appointment orders. The respondents are also
directed to pay the consequential arrears to the
petitioners. Necessary orders shall be passed
within a period of 02 (two) months from the
date of receipt of the writ of this order."
6. In view of the above, all the petitions are allowed.
C/SCA/16444/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/04/2022
Since the issue is squarely covered, the respondent
is directed to confer the benefits to the petitioners in
light of the aforesaid judgments and place them in
regular pay scale from the date of vacancies
available irrespective of the fact that they have
completed 2 years of service and not from
immediately completing 2 years of service.
7. Such order shall be passed within a period of five
months from the date of receipt of the order of this
Court. Rule is made absolute.
(BIREN VAISHNAV, J)
ANKIT SHAH
