Kaushik Harikrishna Mehta vs Gujarat Maritime Board
2022 Latest Caselaw 9952 Guj

       C/SCA/16908/2020                              ORDER DATED: 09/12/2022




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
         R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16908 of 2020
                              With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FIXING DATE OF EARLY HEARING) NO. 1 of 2022
        In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16908 of 2020
==========================================================
                          KAUSHIK HARIKRISHNA MEHTA
                                    Versus
                           GUJARAT MARITIME BOARD
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS HARSHAL N PANDYA(3141) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
NIYATI V VAISHNAV(6168) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR RONAK RAVAL, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS REETA CHANDARANA(3023) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA

                                Date : 09/12/2022
                                 ORAL ORDER

1. Rule. Learned AGP waives service of notice of rule for the respondent no.1 and learned advocate Ms.Reeta Chandarana waives service of notice of rule for the respondent no.2.

2. At the outset, learned advocate Ms.Harshal Pandya has submitted that issue is squarely covered by the judgment dated 21.12.2021 passed in Special Civil Application No.10365 of 2019.

3. Brief facts of the case are as under:-

3.1. The petitioner joined the service of the Gujarat Maritime Board (hereinafter referred to as 'Board') on 17.05.1982 as a Junior Clerk-cum- Typist on temporary basis and later on, came to be regularized as such with effect from 17.05.1982 vide order dated 08.02.1994.

3.2. In view of the scheme of higher pay scale published by the State Government vide its resolution dated 16.08.1994, upon completion 9

C/SCA/16908/2020 ORDER DATED: 09/12/2022

years of service, petitioner was granted benefit of first higher pay scale of Rs.1200-2040/- of the cadre of Senior Clerk with effect from 17.05.1991.

3.3. Thereafter, the original scheme of higher pay scale came to be modified by the State Government vide its resolution dated 02.07.2007, whereby, instead of 9-18-27 scheme, scheme of 12-24 years came to be introduced. As per that scheme, an employee, who had already received benefit of first higher pay scale upon his completion 9 years, would be entitled for second higher pay scale upon completion of another 15 years from receipt of first higher pay scale or total 24 years from initial date.

3.4. Considering the date of first higher pay scale i.e. 17.05.1991, and since petitioner had completed 15 years of service and is also fulfilling criteria, he become entitled to receive second higher pay scale of Rs. 5,000-8,000 (revised Rs. 9,300-34,800, GP 4200 as per 6" pay commission) of the cadre of Head Clerk but till date he is not granted the same.

4. Learned advocate Ms.Harshal Pandya has submitted that such inaction of respondent authorities had constrained one of the co- employees of present petitioner named Hitesh R. Mehta to approach the High Court by way of a petition being Special Civil Application No. 14690 of 2013 for redressal of his grievance about his non-promotion to the post of Senior Clerk as well as non-grant of second higher pay scale upon completion of 24 years of service. It is submitted that the High Court while accepting say of that petitioner, held him entitled for being considered for promotion and directed to grant benefit of second higher pay scale from his due date, vide judgment dated 18.02.2016. Being

C/SCA/16908/2020 ORDER DATED: 09/12/2022

aggrieved by the decision of the Learned Single Judge, the authorities of Maritime Board had preferred an appeal being Letters Patent Appeal No.62 of 2017, which came to be dismissed by the Division Bench on 30.10.2017.

5. Learned advocate Ms.Harshal Pandya appearing for the petitioner has submitted that despite the representations of the petitioner seeking benefit of higher pay-scale, the same are neither decided nor the benefit has been granted to present petitioner.

6. Learned advocate Ms.Harshal Pandya for the petitioner has submitted that some of the similarly situated co-employee had made representations to the State Government as well as office of the Honorable Minister also. In response to which, the Port and Transport Department vide letter dated 29.12.2016 instructed Res. No. 1 to take appropriate steps as per judgment and order of the High Court Court rendered in Special Civil Application No. 14690 of 2013 and report back to them about action taken in that regard. She has submitted that in response to one of such letters, it was replied by the respondent no.1 vide letter dated 26.07.2017 that appeal against that judgment is pending and hence, the decision is taken to keep proposal of giving benefit to similarly situated employees is pending.

7. Learned advocate Ms.Harshal Pandya has submitted that even after dismissal of appeal, the respondent authorities did not do anything despite instructed, which shows adamant approach on the part of respondent authorities, which resulted into denial of legitimate right of petitioner. Thus, she has submitted that once the petitioner has been granted the

C/SCA/16908/2020 ORDER DATED: 09/12/2022

benefit of first higher pay-scale, wherein no objection was taken with regard to regularizing of service, the respondent-Board should have granted the benefit of second higher pay-scale. She has further submitted that two writ petitions being Special Civil Application No.10365 of 2019 and Special Civil Application No.6777 of 2019 filed by the co-employees seeking same relief are allowed by this Court on 21.12.2021 and 22.12.2021, respectively. As intimated by her that the directions given by this Court are complied with and hence, she prays to dispose of the present petition on the same line.

8. Per contra, learned advocate Ms.Reeta Chandarana, while placing reliance on the affidavit, has submitted that the benefit of second higher pay-scale cannot be conferred to the petitioner because he was not regularized in service and the appointment has not been approved and no appointing orders has been signed by the Vice Chairman, who is competent authority.

9. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

10. The facts, as narrated hereinabove, are not in dispute. The petitioner was regularized in service by the order dated 08.02.1994 and prior to that, he was also conferred the benefit of first higher pay-scale by considering his earlier service. Once the petitioner has been granted the benefit of first higher pay-scale, on that premise he is entitled to the second higher pay-scale and it is not open for the respondent-Board to contest that his service was not regularized.

11. It is also not in dispute that the State Authority vide

C/SCA/16908/2020 ORDER DATED: 09/12/2022

communication dated 29.12.2016 had directed the respondent-Board to undertake necessary exercise to grant second higher pay-scale to its employees as per the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 18.02.2016 passed in Special Civil Application No.14690 of 2013.

12. This Court in the aforesaid order had directed the respondent- Board to confer the benefit of second higher pay-scale to its employees. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is also similarly situated and such direction should have been followed in his case also. Thus, despite the directions issued to the respondent-Board, the petitioner is discriminated and has not been extended the benefit of higher pay-scale on the irrelevant grounds as the petitioner is already regularized in service by the order dated 08.02.1994. The respondents were waiting for the result of Letters Patent Appeal filed against the aforesaid order which is also dismissed on 30.10.2017.

13. As narrated hereinabove, the petitioner has already been conferred the benefit of first higher pay-scale. Thus, once he has been regularized, the same would have retrospective effect and service right from the date of appointment has to be considered for conferring the benefit of higher pay-scale and precisely he has been granted first higher pay-scale by counting his earlier service.

14. Considering the aforesaid judgment, two petitions are already allowed.

15. In that view, the present petition is allowed. The respondents are hereby directed to confer the benefit of second higher pay-scale by counting his service of 15 years from the date of grant of the first higher

C/SCA/16908/2020 ORDER DATED: 09/12/2022

pay-scale. Necessary orders with regard to fixation of higher pay-scale and the arrears thereof shall be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the writ of the order of this Court. Rule is made absolute.

16. In view of the order passed in the main matter, civil application does not survive and the same is disposed of accordingly.

(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) ABHISHEK/16