Samtaben W/O Late Bhikhubhai ... vs State Of Gujarat
2022 Latest Caselaw 6788 Guj

     C/SCA/22757/2019                           JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2022




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 22757 of 2019

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 ?

==========================================================
       SAMTABEN W/O LATE BHIKHUBHAI UMIYASHANKAR TERAIYA
                             Versus
                       STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KB PUJARA(680) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3
DEEPAK N KHANCHANDANI(7781) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
MR SOAHAM JOSHI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,5,6,7,8,9
==========================================================
     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
                      Date : 01/08/2022
                      ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Soaham Joshi, learned

Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice

of Rule for the respondent Nos.1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9,

Mr. Khanchandani, learned advocate waives service of

notice of Rule for respondent No.3 while Mr. H.S.

Munshaw, learned counsel waives service of notice of

C/SCA/22757/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2022

Rule for respondent No.4.

2. With the consent of the learned advocates for the

respective parties, the petition is taken up for final

hearing today.

3. By way of this petition, under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, the petitioners, the widow of the

deceased Bhikhubhai Umiyashankar Teraiya and the

other legal heirs have prayed that the respondents be

directed to restore the benefit of first higher pay scale

of Rs.5000-8000/- in favour of the deceased Bhikhubhai

Umiyashankar Teraiya with effect from 20.1.1997 and

also pay all other consequential benefits and amount of

recovery wrongly made from the deceased and to hold

and declare that the deceased was entitled to first

higher pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 on completion of

nine years of service (20-1-1997) in light of the

decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated

26.9.2017 passed in SCA No.1485/2010.

C/SCA/22757/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2022

4. The facts in brief would indicate that the deceased

Bhikhubhai Umiyashankar Teraiya was appointed as

primary teacher in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040 vide

appointment order dated 13.1.1988. He joined duties

on 20.1.1988. On completion of 9 years of service, he

was granted the benefit of first higher pay scale of

Rs.1400-2600/- with effect from 20.1.1997. The pay

scale of Rs.1400-2600/- was revised to Rs.5000-8000/-

with effect from 1.1.1996.

5. Mr. Bhikhubhai Umiyashankar Teraiya, since deceased,

by way of Mutual Inter District Transfer was transferred

from Bhavnagar Municipal School Board to the Rajkot

District Education Committee vide order dated

14.2.2002. He was relieved on 28.2.2002 and he joined

duties at Somalpur Primary School, Taluka : Jasdan,

District Rajkot on 1.3.2002.

6. Based on an audit objection raised by the Local Fund

Office, Bhavnagar, the benefit of the higher pay scale

C/SCA/22757/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2022

of Rs.5000-8000/- was withdrawn and the pay scale

was reduced to that of Rs.4500-7000/- and difference

of salary for the period from the year 1997 to

17/25.3.2015 were recovered.

7. Mr. K. B. Pujara, learned counsel for the petitioner

would submit that the issue of the entitlement of the

higher pay scale of Rs.5000-8000/- and the orders of

recovery in case of primary teachers employed with

the Municipality School Board at Bhavnagar was a

subject-matter of consideration before this Court in

SCA No.13687 of 2009 and allied matters in the case of

Patel Rameshkumar Dharmshibhai v. State of

Gujarat decided on 26.9.2017.

8. Since the deceased Bhikhubhai Umiyashankar Teraiya

was also similarly situated and was entitled to the

benefit of this decision after the judgment of this Court

because of death on 16.7.2019 could not pursue the

remedy.

C/SCA/22757/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2022

9. Mr. Khanchandani and Mr. Munshaw, learned advocates

appearing for the respective parties would object to the

parity of deceased Bhikhubhai Umiyashankar Teraiya

of those petitioners on the ground that the order is of

the year 2015 and the consequential recovery is

challenged now.

10. Perusal of the order dated 26.9.2017 of Coordinate

bench of this Court in the aforesaid matters being SCA

No.13687 of 2009 and allied matters would indicate

that after extensive discussion on the facts and

entitlement of those petitioners to the benefit of first

higher pay scale of Rs.5000-8000/-, the Court held as

under:

"(19) I have considered the rival contentions made by the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties for the lis. I have also perused the documents on record.

(20) The core issue which fastens the present petitions, is that whether the Primary Teachers working in the Municipal Primary Education Committees

C/SCA/22757/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2022

(known as 'Municipal School Boards') are entitled to the higher payscale equivalent to the Primary Teachers working in the District Education Committees.

(21) Before making an endeavor to deal with the aforesaid issue, it will be apposite to take note of the fact that the Primary Teachers of both the Municipal School Boards and the District Education Committees are governed by same Recruitment Rules. They have similar educational qualifications. They can be transferred inter se from the District Committee to the Municipal Boards and vice versa. Their nature of work and working hours are also same. Their recruitment and appointment is also done by the same authorities. The respondents have also acknowledged the said facts.

(22) The Primary Teachers of the Municipal School Boards on their transfer/absorption in the District Primary Education Committees are granted the benefit of higher payscale of Rs.5000- 8000, whereas the Primary Teachers, who remain in the Municipal School Boards, are granted the lower payscale of Rs.4500 7000. The only difference is in the nomenclature when the Primary Teachers are transferred inter se. The promotional post of the Primary Teachers in the Municipal School Board is known as "Supervisor", whereas in the District Primary Education Committee it is "Kelvani Nirikshak" (Education Inspector). The anomaly amongst the Primary Teachers can be

C/SCA/22757/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2022

justified from the judgment dated 26.07.2016 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.15307 of 2003 and allied matters. The same pertained to the Amreli Municipal School Board and Surendranagar District Panchayat School Committee. The Primary Teachers of Amreli Municipal School Board were granted the higher payscale of Rs.5000-8000 since there was a promotional post, whereas the Primary Teachers working in the Surendranagar Municipality were granted the higher payscale of Rs.4500-7000, and only on being absorbed in the Surendranagar District School Committee area they were conferred the benefit of the higher payscale of Rs.5000-8000. Thus, the facts enumerated in the said judgment enlighten the anomaly and discrimination between the two set of Primary Teachers.

(23) The Government Resolution dated 31.07.1982 issued under the powers conferred to the State Government under section 23(4) of the Bombay Primary Education Act, 1947 provides the cadre of primary teachers as feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Education Inspector/ Additional District Education Inspector, and the ratio of promotion and direct recruitment is fixed as 75:25.

Thereafter, the State Government, Education Department vide Resolution dated 11.12.1988, clarified that all the Government Resolutions, Circulars and Orders etc. passed in respect of the employees of the State Government

C/SCA/22757/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2022

shall routinely apply to the primary teachers to the Municipal Corporations/Municipalities. The State Government framed the Assistant Education Inspector, ClassIII Recruitment Rules, 2004. Rule 2(a) postulates that the appointment to the said post shall be made by promotion of a person of the proved merit and efficiency from amongst the persons who have worked for not less than five years as primary teachers.

(24) Under Section 20(3) of the Bombay Primary Education Act, 1947, the rates of pay and allowances and the terms of employment of the Primary Teachers and other staff of the school Board are fixed by the Government. In exercise of the said powers the State Government issued Notification dated 26.02.1998 revising the payscales of the Primary teachers and Education Inspectors/ Supervisor under the Gujarat Civil Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 1998 w.e.f 01.01.1996. As per the Schedule of the said Notification the payscale of the Primary Teachers was revised from Rs.1200- 2040 to Rs.4000-6000, and the payscale of Education Inspector (Kelvani Nirikshak)/Supervisor was revised from Rs.1400-2600 to Rs.5000-8000. As per the Appendix(1) attached to the Resolution dated 16.08.1994, the corresponding higher payscale of Rs.4000-6000 is Rs.5000-8000. Accordingly, the petitioners were granted the higher payscale of promotional post of Kelvani Nirikshak, i.e. Rs.5000- 8000. The same was duly verified and

C/SCA/22757/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2022

approved by the Local Fund Account authorities.

(25) The upshot of the preceding observations is that there is no dissimilarity between the Primary Teachers working under the Municipal School Boards and the District Primary Education Committees in terms of their recruitment, appointment, transfer, initial payscale, working hours and working conditions etc. Their service is intrinsically connected and inter se transferable. The classification made by the respondent authorities of homogeneous class of Primary Teachers is invidious. Thus, the Primary Teachers working in the Municipal School Boards cannot be discriminated in grant of higher payscale only on the ground that there is no post available. The said action of the respondents is in infringement to the fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

(26) The learned advocates for the rival parties have premised their respective submissions on Clause 3(2) of Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994.

(27) The entire controversy of conferring the higher payscale in the case of the petitioner's rests on the interpretation of Clause 3(2) of the Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it will be necessary to have a close look at Clause 3(2) with a view to ascertaining its true nature and import. The same reads thus:

C/SCA/22757/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2022

"3(2): First higher pay scale means the pay scale immediate next to the current post, but if there are different promotional posts available for the employees, then the lowest pay scale of such promotional post shall be considered as their first higher pay scale. But, if there is no pay scale prescribed for promotional post, then first higher pay scale shall be granted corresponding to the present pay scale as per the appendix -

(1) attached to the present resolution. But, for the feeder cadres having different pay scales, instead of fixing the higher pay scale of their promotional post, the higher pay scale shall be fixed as specified in appendix(1) annexed to present resolution."

(28) A careful scrutiny, of Clause 3(2), reveals that three categories are prescribed therein-

(1) for different promotional posts available for employees,

(2) if there is no promotional pay-scale prescribed; and,

(3) where there are feeder cadres having different pay-cales.

(29) By the impugned order dated 06.02.2010, the pay-scale of the petitioners are revised and reduced from Rs.5000- 150-8000 to Rs.4500-125-7000 applying the Appendix-I attached to the Government

C/SCA/22757/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2022

Resolution dated 16.08.1994. The higher pay-scale of the petitioners is reduced by stating that "as per Resolution dated 16.08.1994, the pay-scale of promotional post shall be granted as higher pay scale, but if there are no promotional posts then the same is to be granted as per appendix attached to resolution. If the higher pay-scale of promotional post is granted though there is no such promotional post, then the same is required to be cancelled."

The impugned order dated 06.02.2010 also refers to the order dated 14.06.2005. The order dated 14.06.2005 is passed after interpreting Clause 3(2) of the Resolution dated 16.08.1994 in the above terms. It also states that only those primary teachers who are serving in the Municipal School Boards having the promotional post in the set up shall be granted benefit of higher payscale.

(30) Thus, the higher payscale of the petitioners is reduced on the ground that since there are no "promotional posts" available in the setup of Municipal School Board (Nagar Prathmik Shikshan Samiti), Bhavnagar, they are entitled to the same as per the AppendixI. In my considered opinion, both the orders dated 14.06.2005 and 06.02.2010 are based on the incorrect reading of Clause 3(2) of the Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994. The benefit of higher payscale is denied to the petitioners on the ground that there are "no

C/SCA/22757/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2022

promotional posts" available, whereas, Clause 3(2) of the Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994 does not prescribe such condition as envisaged in the impugned orders. Clause 3(2) only manifests the nonprescription of "the pay- scale" of promotional post and not "nonavailability of promotional post". The case of the petitioners will not fall in the first category of Clause 3(2) as the same refers to "different promotional posts", which is not the case of the respondents. The same also does not refer to "Appendix1" of the Resolution. Category (3) will also not apply as the same states about the promotional posts having different feeder cadres. Thus, the case of the petitioners will only fall under category (2), which mentions about "if there is no promotional pay-

            scale prescribed".        Indubitably,     the
            "promotional pay         scale"     of     the

petitioner, i.e Primary Teachers is that of the post of Education Inspector/ Supervisor. Thus, the grant of the higher payscale to the Primary Teachers will not depend on the actual existence of the post in a set up but the same has to be conferred considering the "promotional pay scale". There are different Municipal School Boards in the State, which may or may not have required set up of promotional post of Supervisor, but that does not mean that the "promotional payscale" of such post does not exist. The contention canvassed by learned advocate Mr.Mukesh Patel that the promotional payscale would depend on the availability of the promotional post is misconceived, since promotional pay

C/SCA/22757/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2022

scale is not sine qua non to availability of post in a set up but in a cadre. In a Government set up the posts of particular cadre may not be available though there exists a promotional payscale for such posts. Such principle, if applied, may lead to anamolaous situations, as one Municipal School Board might have a promotional post, and if the other Municipal School Board does not have the setup, in that case the teachers of one school Board will have the benefit of the higher payscale of promotional post, whereas the teachers of the other school Board will be granted the benefit of the lower higher payscale as per AppendixI of Government Resolution 16.08.1994. As observed in the foregoing paragraphs, the Supervisor of Amreli Municipal School Board are being paid the higher payscale of Rs.5000-8000, whereas the petitioners of Bhavnagar Municipal School Board are not conferred such benefits. The policy of the higher payscale does not discriminate amongst institutions/authorities looking to different areas where they are situated. The policy has to be applied uniformly. The intention of the Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994 can never be construed in such a restricted manner, which would lead to an incongruent situation and will be against the letter and spirit of the scheme. Hence, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and set aside as the same are based on the misreading of categories specified in Clause 3(2) of the Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994.

C/SCA/22757/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2022

(31) Though, the principle of "equal pay for equal work", will not apply in the cases where the higher payscale is prescribed in order to remove stagnation in service, in the present case, the petitioners will be entitled to the benefit by applying same as there exists a promotional pay scale of the post of Education Inspector/ Supervisor, and the same is only denied due to lack of promotional post and not because of lack of promotional payscale. At this juncture it will be apposite to refer to the judgement of the Apex Court on the said principle.

(32) In the case of Randhir Singh Vs. Union of India, (1982) 1 SCC 618 decided by a three Judge bench, the Apex Court has observed thus:

"We cannot accept this view. If this view is to be stretched to its logical conclusion, the scales of pay of officers of the same rank in the Government of India may vary from department to department notwithstanding that their powers, duties and responsibilities are identical. We concede that equation of posts and equation of pay are matters primarily for the Executive Government and expert bodies like the Pay Commission and not for Courts but we must hasten to say that where all things are equal that is, where all relevant considerations are the same, persons holding identical posts may not be treated differentially in the matter of their pay merely because they belong to different departments. Of course, if officers of the same rank

C/SCA/22757/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2022

perform dissimilar functions and the powers, duties and responsibilities of the posts held by them vary, such officers may not be heard to complain of dissimilar pay merely because the posts are of the same rank and the nomenclature is the same."

(33) The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gujarat State Govt. College Lab. Staff Association Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2011 (3) G.L.H. 376 on the principle of "equal work and equal" pay has observed that if there is no controversy or dispute about the parity of posts, functions and responsibilities of the Lab- Assistants in question being of higher level or about the fact of the LabAssistants in P.T.T. colleges being paid the higher wages, the equality in the payscale cannot be denied only on the basis that the LabAssistants in the P.T.T. colleges were appointed in different colleges under the same Department and were offered the higher payscale from the start.

(34) In view of the proposition of law elucidated by the Supreme Court and this Court, in my considered opinion, the petitioners are also entitled to the same payscale to that of the teachers working in the District School Boards.

(35) The next issue which requires deliberation is the assertion made by the learned Advocates for the respective parties about existence/nonexistence of the post in the set up Bhavnagar Municipal School Board.

C/SCA/22757/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2022

(36) Learned advocates Mr.Pujara and Mr.Shah for the petitioners have submitted that after filing of the present petitions, Director of Primary Education had written a letter dated 25.06.2015 for filling up one post of Education Inspector by promotion in Bhavnagar Municipal School Board. Hence, it is submitted that the contention raised by learned advocate Mr.Patel that there is no promotional post in existence is contrary to what the authorities have taken the stand.

(37) Learned advocate Mr.Patel has stated that the aforesaid post which is indicated to be filled in by letter dated 25.06.2015 does not fall in the setup of promotional post of Supervisor.

(38) The documents on record would exposit that in the Municipal School Board, Bhavangar, where the present petitioners are serving, there exists a sanctioned post of Supervisor/Education Inspector. By the promotion orders dated 27.03.1987, three posts of Education Inspectors were filled in. The same were filled considering the Government Resolution dated 31.07.1982.

            By Letter           dated          05.05.1989,
            Administrative Officer,    Municipal    School
            Board,     Bhavnagar has       informed    the

Director or Pension and Provident Fund, that one Shri Trivedi was appointed to the post of Kelvani Nirikshak though the requirement was of Supervisor. Thereafter, also one post of Supervisor

C/SCA/22757/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2022

which fell vacant in the Municipal School Board, was filled in by direct recruitment vide order dated 19.06.1990 and one Shri Rakeskumar Desai was appointed on the said post. Thus, the foregoing documents believe the contention of the respondents that there is no promotional post available in Bhavnagar Municipal School Board. The plea raised by learned advocate Mr.Patel that all the aforesaid orders were passed due to mistake does not inspire confidence as such an action could not have gone unnoticed for all these years even after the scrutiny of the local fund audit. The aforesaid contention is nothing but an afterthought, as admittedly, no action is taken against any authority for the alleged incorrect fixation of pay scale. Assuming there was wrong fixation then also the respondents cannot be permitted to take benefit of their own wrong.

(39) The Supreme Court in the case of Bhartiya Seva Samaj Trust Tr. Pres. and Anr. v. Yogeshbhai Ambalal Patel and Anr., AIR 2012 S.C. 3285, while dealing with the same contention has held:

"21. A person alleging his own infamy cannot be heard at any forum, what to talk of a Writ Court, as explained by the legal maxim allegans suam turpitudinem non est audiendus'. If a party has committed a wrong, he cannot be permitted to take the benefit of his own wrong.... This concept is also explained by the legal maxims

C/SCA/22757/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2022

Commodum ex injuria sua non habere debet ; and 'nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria'."

Thus, it is not open for the respondent authorities to contend that all the earlier orders passed by them were erroneous, in light of the fact that no efforts are made by them to withdraw the same.

(40) Learned Advocates for the petitioner in their written submissions have produced the documents in support of their contention asserting about existence of a promotional post in Bhavnagar Municipal School Board. The documents are supplied to the other side also. Reliance is placed in the Letter dated 25.06.2015, written by the Director of Primary Education, which mentions about filling up of one post of Supervisor by promotion in Bhavnagar Municipal School Board. They have placed reliance on Government Resolution dated 29.10.1969 passed by the State Government, Education Department, which indicates that one post of Supervisor was created in the setup of Bhavnagar School Board. It is also pointed out that vide Resolution No.41 dated 09.03.2017, passed by Bhavnagar Municipal School Board, there is reference to the Government Resolution dated 29.10.1969 sanctioning one post of Kelavni Nirikshak/Supervisor. Learned Advocate Mr.Pujara has also specified that the said resolution was sent to the State Government and it is also approved by the State Government vide letter dated

C/SCA/22757/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2022

28.07.2017. He has stated that the said post which is vacant in Bhavnagar can be filled up by direct recruitment as well as by promotion in view of the Recruitment Rules.

(41) In response to the aforesaid documents and arguments, leaned Advocate Mr.Patel has submitted that letter dated 25.06.2015 cannot apply retrospectively as the post which has fallen vacant is of the year 2014. Learned advocate Mr.Patel in response to the aforesaid Resolution dated 09.03.2017, passed by his clients, (subsequently approved by the State government), has submitted that he does not deny the same, but he has submitted that the post which is referred in the said communication is with regard to the letter dated 25.06.2015 of Director of Primary Education Officer and the same only pertains to the sanctioned post which is created in the year 2014. Thus, he has stated that the same will not apply retrospectively in the case of the petitioners.

(42) Learned advocate Mr.Patel is unable to dispute the existence of Resolution No.41 as well as granting approval to the aforesaid resolution by the State Government vide letter dated 28.07.2017. The entire controversy in the present writ petitions is defined succinctly in the aforesaid Resolution No.41 passed by the respondentMunicipal School

C/SCA/22757/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2022

Board. A perusal of Resolution No.41 passed by the respondentMunicipal School Board will clarify that their existed a post of Supervisor since 1969. The said resolution clearly refers to Government Resolution dated 29.10.1969 by which one post of Kelavni Nirikshak/ Supervisor in the setup of Bhavnagar Municipal School Board was sanctioned. It also refers letter dated 25.06.2015 of the Director of Primary Education for filling up of such post. It is pertinent to note that in the said resolution, while recommending for filling up of the post by way of promotion, reliance is placed on the Recruitment Rules framed under Resolution dated 31.07.1982, Resolution dated 20.06.1992, as well as Notification dated 03.01.2004 and Government Resolution dated 06.09.2004. It is indicated that the particulars of the aforesaid Government Resolutions and Notification will apply to the Municipal School Board, Bhavnagar. It further also refers that one post of Kelavni Nirikshak/Supervisor is required to be filled by direct recruitment, and the same shall carry the pay-scale of Rs.9300-34800 and Grade Pay of Rs.4200, as per the State Government norms. Further, it also states that after the appointment the concerned Kelavni Nirikshak / Supervisor, he shall be granted the benefit of the higher pay-scale. The last paragraph of Resolution No.41 also refers that the said post of Kelavni Nirikshak / Supervisor shall also be filled in by way of promotion. It also refers that those Primary Teachers shall be granted the

C/SCA/22757/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2022

higher payscale after completion of nine years' service of Kelavni Nirikshak/ Supervisor. The aforesaid resolution was sent for approval to the State Government and by letter dated 28.07.2017 the same is approved by observing that the post of Education Inspector/Supervisor can be filled in by way of direct recruitment as well as by way of promotion. Thus, the tenor of the Resolution No.41 passed by the RespondentMunicipal School Board, does not leave any scintilla of doubt that the post of Supervisor is in existence since 1969, and the same is intermittently filled in by promotion/appointment of Primary Teachers, which is eminent from the promotional orders relied by the petitioners.

(43) In the backdrop of the aforenoted factual and legal position, the submission canvassed by the respondents there does not exist promotional post for Primary Teachers in Bhavnagar Municipal Board does not deserve credence.

(44) In view of the foregoing observations and analysis, and bearing in mind the law explicated by the Supreme Court, in my opinion, the impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The respondents are hereby directed to grant the benefits of the higher payscale of Rs.5000-8000 to the petitioners. The orders granting the higher payscale of Rs.5000-8000 to the petitioners are restored. Consequential benefits arising out of the

C/SCA/22757/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2022

present judgement shall be paid to the petitioners within a period of 06 (six) weeks from today. If any benefits which are already paid to the petitioners in view of the earlier orders passed in their favour conferring the higher payscale of Rs.5000-8000, the same shall be adjusted accordingly. Direct service is permitted.

The petitions are allowed. Rule made absolute."

11. Perusal of the order of the Coordinate Bench which was

implemented by the State vide order dated 9.10.2018

would indicate that the Court came to the conclusion

that the petitioners therein were entitled to the benefit

of the first higher pay scale of Rs.5000-8000/- and

accordingly restored the benefit and set aside the

orders which reduced their pay scales to RS.4500-

7000/- and also set aside the recoveries.

12. Admittedly, there is no reason why the heirs of the

deceased Bhikhubhai Umiyashankar Teraiya be

granted the benefits of the Judgment and order dated

26.09.2017, particularly, when the orders dated

C/SCA/22757/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2022

26.09.2017 was complied by the State in passing

Resolution of 09.10.2018 restoring the benefits of the

pay scale of Rs.5000-8000/- and also by a subsequent

order dated 25.06.2019, by which, the second higher

pay scale of RS.5500-9000/- was granted to the

petitioners.

13. In the case of Vipulkumar Atmaram Parekh v. State of

Gujarat reported in 2009(5) GLR 3914, this Court has

held that if a law is declared by a Court, it is conclusive and

the State cannot deny the benefits on the ground that the

principles laid down therein could apply only to the

petitioners.

14. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The respondents

are hereby directed to restore the benefit of the first

higher pay scale of Rs.5000-8000/- in favour of the

deceased Bhikhubhai Umiyashankar Teraiya with effect

from 20.1.1997 and pay all other consequential

benefits accordingly. Further in light of the decision of

the State vide resolution dated 25.6.2019, the pay of

C/SCA/22757/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2022

the deceased Bhikhubhai Umiyashankar Teraiya would

be revised on the basis of he being entitled to the

benefit of second higher pay scale of Rs.5500-9000

with effect from 20.1.2008. Consequential revision of

pension, arrears thereto and pay and pension and

revision of family pension accordingly be done by the

respondents. However, directions issued that the

amount of benefits recovered pursuant to the

impugned order dated 17/25-3-2015 be refunded to

the petitioner herein.

15. The entire exercise shall be carried out within a period

of ten weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this

order, failing which, interest @ 9% p.a. shall be paid to

the petitioner.

16. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct

Service is permitted. No costs.

(BIREN VAISHNAV, J) VATSAL S. KOTECHA