Gujarat High Court
Hema Kannan Iyer vs Director Of Pension And Provident ... on 14 February, 2022
Bench: Biren Vaishnav
C/SCA/8114/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/02/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8114 of 2021
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16105 of 2021
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed NO
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy NO
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question NO
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
HEMA KANNAN IYER
Versus
DIRECTOR OF PENSION AND PROVIDENT FUND, GUJARAT STATE
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS HARSHAL N PANDYA(3141) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR HEMANG M SHAH(5399) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MS SURBHI BHATI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
Date : 14/02/2022
CAV JUDGMENT
ORDER IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8114 OF 2021
1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Harshal Pandya for the petitioner, Ms.
C/SCA/8114/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/02/2022
Surbhi Bhati, learned AGP for respondents no. 1 and 2 and Ms. Princy
Shah, learned advocate for Mr. Hemang Shah, learned advocate for
respondent no. 3.
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Ms. Surbhi Bhati, learned AGP for
respondents no. 1 and 2 and Ms. Princy Shah, learned advocate for
respondent no. 3 waive service of notice of rule. With the consent of the
learned advocates for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing
today.
3. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the
petitioner who voluntarily retired as Principal Private Secretary on the
establishment of the High Court of Gujarat on 22.12.2016 has come to
this court praying for a writ of mandamus or any other writ to the
respondent authorities and to direct the respondent authorities to fix her
pension and other retirement dues on the basis of pay drawn by her in the
pay-scale of Rs.67700-208700 at the time of her retirement i.e.
31.12.2016.
4. Facts in brief leading to the filing of the present petition are as
under:
4.1 The petitioner joined the establishment of the High Court of
Gujarat on her being selected and appointed as Private Secretary
(Stenographer - Grade I) vide office order dated 25.02.2000. By an
office order dated 12.09.2002, she was ordered to be continued to
officiate on that post on a long term basis. Prior to her joining the High
Court, the petitioner had served in various departments of the Central
Government in different capacities which was treated as continuous
service without interruption only for the purposes of pension and other
retiral benefits. This office order was passed on 13.05.2003 by the
C/SCA/8114/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/02/2022
respondent no. 3 i.e. the High Court of Gujarat (on its administrative
side).
4.2 By a notification dated 12.08.2011, the petitioner was promoted as
Principal Private Secretary and she was confirmed on the said post vide
notification dated 01.10.2012. As a Private Secretary, she was drawing
her pay in the scale of Rs.6500-10500 (Fifth Pay Commission) which was
revised to Rs.9300-34,300, Grade Pay - Rs.4200 which was later on
revised to Grade Pay Rs.4600 with effect from 01.01.2006 as per the
Sixth Pay Commission. As Principal Private Secretary, she drew her pay
in the scale of Rs.15600-39100 with a grade pay of Rs.6600/-. As per the
6th Pay commission, the petitioner's pay was revised as Rs.67,700-
2,08,700. She took voluntary retirement which was accepted and she
retired from service which was accepted from 31.12.2016. At the time of
retirement, the pay of the petitioner was in the scale of Rs.67,700-
2,08,700.
5. Ms. Harshal Pandya, learned counsel for the petitioner would draw
the attention of the court to the pension payment order and submit that the
petitioner's pension and other retirement benefits have been fixed
considering her pay as per the 6th Pay Commission in the pay scale of
Rs.15,600-39,100 (Grade Pay Rs.6600). Despite the fact that no inquiry
was either pending or contemplated, her pension has been fixed in the
scale as per the 6th Pay Commission rather than that of the 7 th Pay
Commission. Ms. Pandya would draw the attention of the Court to the
pay fixation order (page 104) and submit that as per the decision of the
Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 652 of 2016, considering
Rule 8 and Rule 13 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Revision of Pay) Rules,
2009, the pay of the petitioner was fixed.
5.1 Ms. Pandya would draw the attention of the court to the Gujarat
C/SCA/8114/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/02/2022
Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002 particularly the definition of
pensionable pay as per Rule 2(56) and submit that as per this definition
'Pensionable Pay' would mean the average pay earned by a government
employee during the last ten months of service and inasmuch as the pay
of the petitioner when she retired was as per the 7th Pay Commission,
pension ought to have been fixed and paid in accordance therewith.
5.2 Ms. Pandya would submit that during the tenure of service of the
petitioner some of the Private Secretaries/Principal Private Secretaries
working on the establishment of the High Court had preferred Special
Civil Application No. 12207 of 2014 and allied matters before this court
for stepping up of their pay at par with their juniors appointed after
01.01.2006 who had got their entry level pay of Rs.1,250/- higher than
their seniors. The petition came to be allowed vide judgement dated
19.10.2015 and the pay of the petitioners therein was stepped up to
Rs.12,540/- in the pay scale of Rs.9300-34800. The judgement of the
learned Single Judge was confirmed by the Division Bench in Letters
Patent Appeal No. 652 of 2016 by a judgement of 15.09.2016, by just
modifying that the actual benefits will be given from 01.04.2010 instead
of 01.01.2006 and the interest was denied. The petitioner was not a party
to the litigation but was a similarly placed Principal Private Secretary and
therefore was extended the benefits of the judgement in the appeal. In
accordance with the directions of the Division Bench, though the
petitioner was not a party, arrears was paid to her and a certificate to that
effect was issued. Accordingly, the petitioner was entitled to receive
pension as prayed for.
5.3 Ms. Pandya would draw the attention of the court to the
representations made by the petitioner for revision of pension as per 6 th
pay Commission in January 2021 and February 2021 requesting the
administrative side of the High Court that her last drawn pay in the pay
C/SCA/8114/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/02/2022
matrix was Rs.76,200/- whereas the pension payment order as per the 6 th
Pay Commission stated her last pay as Rs.28,830/- based on which she
had received pensionary benefit and her pension needed to be revised on
basis of her last payslip as well as the last pay certificate as per the 7 th Pay
Commission.
6. Ms. Surbhi Bhati, learned AGP appearing for respondents no. 1
and 2 would draw the attention of the court to the affidavit-in-reply filed
on behalf of respondent no. 2 by the Accounts Officer, Director of
Accounts and Treasuries, Gujarat State. She would submit that in the
case of the petitioner, on introduction of the 6 th Pay Commission with
effect from 01.01.2006, Rule 13 of the Revision of Pay Rules, 2009 was
applicable to the petitioner wherein it is stated that one increment equal to
3% of the sum of the pay in the pay band and the existing grade pay shall
be computed and rounded off to the next multiple of ten. She would
submit that the petitioner got her yearly increment as stated above. The
petitioner obtained promotion on 12.08.2011 on the post of Principal
Private Secretary.
6.1 Ms. Bhati further submitted that it appears that the fixation of pay
was done as per Rule 8 'Schedule B' of the Revision of Pay Rules, 2009.
This rule is applicable only to fresh recruits who have joined service on
or after 01.01.2006. It was therefore submitted that the petitioner was
wrongly given fixation of pay which ought to have been done under Rule
13 of the Rules. She would submit that the issue was discussed with the
Registrar General of the High Court of Gujarat and therefore the
petitioner is not entitled to have her pension fixed in accordance with the
7th Pay Commission.
7. Ms. Pandya has filed a rejoinder to the reply filed by the State and
submitted that those employees who had approached the High Court, had
C/SCA/8114/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/02/2022
been given the benefit of Rule 8 and Rule 9 and their pay fixation was
done in accordance with the decision of the High Court. On the basis of
directions, their pay was stepped up to which the state authorities never
conveyed any objections and the petitioners of those petitions who also
had their pay fixed in accordance with Rule 8 and Rule 13 are drawing
the pay as per the 7th Pay Commission, albeit they have not been released
the third installment which is a subject matter of Special Civil
Application No. 16105 of 2021.
8. An affidavit has also been filed by the High Court of Gujarat on its
administrative side by one Shri R.K. Chudawala, Registrar (Recruitment
and Finance). The affidavit indicates that the gratuity and commuted
value of pension etc. was not approved as per the 7 th Pay Commission.
Time and again the Nazir department of the High Court had approached
the respondent no. 2 for approving the pay of the petitioner as per 7 th Pay
Commission and to issue a sticker to that effect. However, the Pay
Verification Unit refused to issue the sticker for pay fixation as per the 7 th
Pay Commission. It was on this account that the High Court on the
administrative side was not in a position to revise and fix the pension of
the petitioner as per the 7th Pay Commission. Based on the judgement in
Special Civil Application No. 12207 of 2014 and the Division Bench in
Letters Patent Appeal No. 652 of 2016, a submission had been placed for
fixing the pay of such employees from the date of their entitlement and
release of arrears. The same was approved on 11.11.2016. A circular
was issued on 22.08.2014 by the State opining that when any question
arises out of interpretation of similar issues and when such an issue is
necessary, the benefit should be given based on the circular dated
22.08.2014 for deciding similarly situated cases. On 15.11.2016, another
submission for refixation of pay admissible to certain employees
including the present petitioner was made and the pay of the petitioner
was accordingly fixed, details of which have been given in the affidavit-
C/SCA/8114/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/02/2022
in-reply. That submission made by the High Court on its administrative
side was approved. On 17.11.2016, the High Court therefore on its
administrative side issued a certificate certifying payment of arrears of
Rs.73,353/- to the petitioner. The Registrar General, on 07.06.2019, was
informed that the benefit of the judgement shall be given only to the
petitioners of the said petition and therefore the petitioner could not be
given the benefits of the 7th Pay Commission recommendations while
revising pension. The communication dated 07.06.2019 is on record at
Annexure Z4. By communications of 05.10.2019, the legal department
asked the administrative side of the High Court to furnish details of
persons who are not parties to these petitions and according to the circular
of the General Administrative Department dated 22.08.2015 whether they
can be extended the benefits. On 19.11.2019, again the respondent no. 3
on its administrative side requested the legal department to grant benefits
to such employees who are not parties to the petition but were similarly
situated. On record are the reminders of the High Court on its
administrative side dated 05.02.2020, 06.03.2020, 19.06.2020,
04.09.2020, 30.09.2020, 16.12.2020, 08.01.2021, 25.01.2021,
02.02.2021, 09.04.2021, 22.06.2021 and 17.08.2021. It was only when
the details were uploaded on the portal, an endorsement showed that the
entry level is not admissible in promotion case and hence the petitioner
who had not filed any petition would not be extended the benefits of such
entry level pay. The communication of the portal which was uploaded is
annexed to the reply at Annexure Z9.
9. At this stage, it will be relevant to refer to the context of the
affidavit-in-reply as it contains the grievance of the petitioners of Special
Civil Application No. 16105 of 2021. As per the Government Resolution
dated 13.03.2018, it had been stipulated that the third tranche of arrears
can be paid to an employee after approval of pay fixation as per 7 th Pay
Commission after submitting the same online. The petitioner of the
C/SCA/8114/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/02/2022
present petition and the petitioners of Special Civil Application No.
16105 had been paid the first and the second tranche of arrears of the 7 th
Pay Commission. The third tranche is pending due to the rejection by
respondent no. 2.
10. Considering the pleadings and the arguments made by the learned
counsels for the respective parties, what is evident from the orders is that
the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 8114 of 2021 was
appointed on the establishment of High Court; she retired as Principal
Private Secretary; as it is evident from the payslip of December 2016
where her pay range in the pay matrix was Rs.67700 - 208700. The
grievance of the petitioner is that though she retired in the aforesaid pay
matrix, and her last pay drawn was Rs.76,200/- as per the December 2016
payslip, her pension is fixed as per the 6 th Pay Commission and the
pension payment order states the last pay as Rs.28,830/-. It is in this
context that the definition of 'pensionable pay' as defined in Rule 2(56)
of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002 needs to be
reproduced and the same reads as under:
"(56) "Pensionable Pay" means the average pay earned by a
Government employee during the last ten months service as
per provisions contained in rule 43 of the Gujarat Civil
Service (Pension) Rules, 2002."
10.1 Admittedly, therefore, at the time when the petitioner retired, her
pay was in the pay scale as fixed in accordance with the 7 th Pay
Commission and therefore the petitioner is entitled to receive pension
accordingly.
11. A brief view of the litigation that was filed and decided by this
High Court is necessary wherein the petitioner though was not a party,
her colleagues had successfully got their pay fixation in the pay of
C/SCA/8114/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/02/2022
Rs.12,540/-, as their prayer was that their pay be stepped up by placing
them at that pay since juniors to the petitioners therein who were
appointed post 01.01.2006 as fresh recruits were getting the pay of
Rs.12,540/-. The prayers in the petition need a reproduction.
"13(b)to quash and set aside the impugned illegal actions of
the respondents in giving arbitrary and discriminatory
treatment to the petitioners by placing them at
Rs.12,090/ w.e.f. 1.1.2006 and thereby paying them less
salaries than their juniors who are placed at Rs.12540/-
w.e.f. 1.1.2006 as is revealed from the comparative
statements at AnnexureG and AnnexureH, and to remove the
said anomaly and discrimination;
(c)to direct the respondents, their agents and servants to step
up the petitioners' pay and to put them at par with
their juniors who are appointed on or after 1.1.2006 and to
place the petitioners at the stage of Rs.12540/in the
Payband of Rs.930034800 (PB2) with effect from
1.1.2006 which is the Entry Level Pay for fresh
recruits as per Finance Department G.R. dtd.14th
September, 2011 at AnnexureF, and to pay all the
consequential benefits to the petitioners accordingly.
(d) to direct the respondents, their agents and servants to
pay the arrears of difference of salary payable to
the petitioners on removal of anomaly together
with interest @ 18% per annum. xxx xxx xxx (g)
be pleased to quash and set aside the G.R. dated 14.9.2011
at AnnexureF of the petition as arbitrary and
discriminatory insofar as it provides for the Entry Level Pay
of the employees appointed as fresh recruits on or
after 1.1.2006 in the PB2 (930034800) Grade Pay-
4600 at Rs.12540 Pay in the Pay Band, Total
Rs.17140, without taking into consideration the fact that the
Senior employees appointed prior to 1.1.2006 in the same
cadre like the present petitioners are placed at
Rs.12090 Pay in the Pay Band, thereby resulting into patent
anomaly and discrimination because pursuant to the said
G.R. dtd. 14.9.2011 the senior employees like the present
petitioners who are appointed prior to 1.1.2006 are
C/SCA/8114/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/02/2022
being paid less salary than their juniors in the same cadre
appointed on or after 1.1.2006, thereby
violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India;
OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE,
(h) be pleased to read down the G.R. dtd.14.9.2011
at AnnexureF of the petition as if it is providing
for the same Rs.12540 Pay in Pay Band as on 1.1.2006
for the employees appointed prior to 1.1.2006 like the
present petitioners, as has been provided for the fresh
recruits appointed on or after 1.1.2006, and be
further pleased to direct the respondents to act accordingly
insofar as the petitioners are concerned;"
11.1 The prayers were opposed by the State on the ground that the
petitioners therein had got their initial entry prior to 01.01.2006 and those
who were appointed post 01.01.2006 subsequently were not similarly
circumstanced employees. The court, after considering various decisions
cited by the respective parties, found that the pay fixation of seniors, the
petitioners lower than that of the post 01.01.2006 employees resulted in
an unpalatable anomaly. The court found that the petitioners of Special
Civil Application No. 12207 of 2014 who were appointed in the year
2005 as Private Secretaries and the petitioners of Special Civil
Application No. 18619 of 2014 and others who were appointed as
Assistants prior to 01.01.2006 were entitled to stepping up of pay. An
extensive interpretation of the Gujarat Civil Services (Revision of Pay)
Rules, 2009 in context of the resolution dated 14.09.2011 was done
considering Rules 8 and 13 of the Rules, 2009. The court found that in
pursuance of the Government Resolution dated 14.09.2011 the petitioners
who were in service as on 31.12.2005 in the pay scales of Rs.5500-9000
and Rs.6500-10500 came to be placed in the pay band range of Rs.9300-
34800 (PB2). However, their pay later on came to be fixed as Rs.9,300/-
and Rs.12,090/- which in the case of their juniors in the same cadre who
were appointed on or after January 2006 were fixed at Rs.10,810/- and
C/SCA/8114/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/02/2022
Rs.12,540/- i.e. higher than their seniors. The court therefore found an
apparent anomaly in the salaries paid to the petitioners who were seniors
viz-a-viz their juniors who were receiving more salaries. The court found
that this anomaly had arisen in wake of the implementation of 6 th Pay
Commission. Reading the 6th Pay Commission recommendations and the
Rules and the resolution dated 14.09.2011, the court found that when it is
an admitted fact that the petitioners and their juniors belonged to the same
cadre and their nature of duties are self same, grant of more salary to
these post 01.01.2006 direct recruits could not be sustained. Also relying
on clause 2.2.22 and on Rule 7 and Note 4 thereof, the court found that
where in fixation of pay under sub-rule 1 Rule 7, the pay of a government
servant who in the existing pay was drawing immediately before
01.01.2006 more pay than another government servant junior to him in
the same cadre, gets fixed in a revised band at a stage lower than that of
such junior, his pay shall be stepped up upto the same stage in the revised
pay band as that of his junior. Considering this principle and Note 4 of
the Rules, and the principle of stepping up, the petitions were allowed and
consequential directions were issued to the respondents. It will be in the
fitness of things to reproduce the relevant paras of the decision in the case
of Special Civil Application No. 12207 of 2014:
"10. Here in the present case, insofar as the petitioners of
Special Civil Application No.12207 of 2014 are concerned,
they were appointed during the year 2005 as Private
Secretary, Class-II in the pay-scale of Rs.6500-10500.
Insofar as the petitioners of Special Civil Application
Nos.18619 of 2014, 2965 of 2015 and 4716 of 2015, are
concerned, they were appointed as Assistants (Junior Clerks)
and thereafter, in pursuance of the advertisement for the post
of Stenographer Grade-II, they were appointed as
Gujarati/English Stenographer Grade-II in the pay-scale of
Rs.5500-9000 prior to January 01, 2006 on following due
recruitment procedure.
C/SCA/8114/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/02/2022
11. After implementation of the Rules, 2009, the
Government revised the grade pay of the post bearing pre-
revised pay-scale of Rs.5500-9000 and Rs.6500-10500 vide
Government Resolution dated April 06, 2010 and October
14, 2010. Subsequent to these revision of grade pays, the
Government has decided the entry level pay payable under
Rule 8 of the Rules in the revised pay structure for direct
recruits as shown below vide Government Resolution dated
September 14, 2011 issued by the Finance Department of the
State.
12. In pursuance of the said Government Resolution, the
petitioners who were in service as on December 31, 2005 in
the pay-scales of Rs.5500-9000 and Rs.6500-10500, came to
be placed in the pay-band range of Rs.9300-34800 (PB-2),
however, their pay later on came to be fixed as Rs.9300/-
and 12090/- respectively, which in the case of their juniors
in the same cadre who were appointed on or after January
01, 2006, was fixed at Rs.10810/- and Rs.12,540/-
respectively i.e. higher than their seniors. Thus, there is
apparent anomaly in the salaries being paid to the petitioners
who are seniors vis-a-vis their juniors who are receiving
more salaries. This anomaly has arisen in the wake of
implementation of the Sixth Central Pay Commission, which
has been given effect from January 01, 2006. Admittedly, all
the petitioners were appointed in the year 2005 in the pay-
scale of Rs.5500-9000 and Rs.6500-10500 respectively.
13. With the acceptance of the Sixth Central Pay
Commission, the petitioners herein are given the pay after
multiplying their pay-scale with 1.86 factor, whereas the
Government Resolution dated September 14, 2011, provided
that in pursuance of the Government of India decision, on
the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission
and Central Civil Services Revised Rules, the employees
appointed as fresh recruits to particular posts carry a
st
particular pay-band range on or before the 1 day of
January, 2006, their entry level pay is to be fixed as per the
Schedule B. It further says that subsequent to the revision of
grade-pay, the necessary amendment in Schedule B of
Revision of Pay Rules was under consideration and after
C/SCA/8114/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/02/2022
careful consideration, the State Government has decided as
under :
::RESOLUTION::
The State Government has decided to revise the entry level
pay, payable under Rule-8 of The Gujarat Civil Service
(Revision of Pay) Rules, 2009, in the revised pay structure
for direct recruits as shown below :
PB-2 (9300-34800)
Grade Pay Pay in the Pay Band Total
4400 10810 15210
4600 12540 17140
st
Employees appointed as fresh recruits on or after 1 day of
January, 2006 to a particular post carrying above
mentioned grade pays, their entry level pay shall be as
shown above. These orders shall take effect from
01.01.2006. The pay from 01.01.2006 to 31.3.2010 and the
difference of pay and allowances payable thereon shall be
notional at par with the other government employees
covered under Finance Department, Government
Resolutions dated 6.4.2010 and 14.10.2010, and hence not
payable. Further revised entry pay and allowance thereon
shall be paid in cash from 01.04.2010.
Subsequent amendment to the Gujarat Civil Service
(Revision of Pay) Rules, 2009 shall be made hereafter.
14. These orders are made effective from January 01,
2006. It is rightly emphasised that there is no rational as to
why pay in pay-band of Rs.10810/- and Rs.12540/- was not
given to the respective petitioners, especially when it is an
admitted fact that the petitioners and their juniors belong to
the same cadre and their nature of duties are also selfsame.
The impugned Government Resolution is also silent on the
aspect as to why the petitioners being seniors are being paid
less salary than their juniors. The concept of entry level pay
of direct recruits has been introduced for the first time by the
Sixth Central Pay Commission as per the respondent-
authority, with novelties of pay-band and grade-pay. The
C/SCA/8114/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/02/2022
question, therefore, as to grant of more salary to the direct
recruits should be sustained, even if the same permits
anomaly, needs to be answered in negation. The say of the
respondent-State that to fix minimum pay in the case of
direct recruits on the post attached with the specific grade
pay, is already recommended on following due procedure
does not violate the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work'
also cannot be countenanced. This also has no rationale nor
based on intelligible differentia and, therefore, does not clear
the test of permissible classification.
15. In fact, on mere perusal of Clause 2.2.22 of the Sixth
Central Pay Commission Report, which has been relied upon
by the respondent-State, it gets cleared that sub-clause (v)
categorically provides for stepping up of the pay of the
seniors if they draw less pay in the revised scale than their
juniors. It would be profitable to reproduce the said sub-
clause (v) of Clause 2.2.22 of the said report, which reads as
under :
2.2.22 : Fixation of pay in the revised pay bands of
existing employees as well as future recruits shall be
done in the following manner :
xxx xxx xxx
(v) In case of promotion between identical posts in the
same cadre, if a senior employee promoted to the
higher post before 1.1.2006 draws less pay in the
revised scale from his/her junior who is promoted to
the higher post on or after 1.1.2006, the pay of the
senior employee shall be stepped up to an amount
equal to the pay of the junior in that higher post,
provided the senior employees, at the time
of promotion, had been drawing equal or more pay
than his/her junior.
Thus, the very sub-clause (v) provides for stepping up
of the pay if a senior employee promoted to the higher post
before 1.1.2006 draws less pay in the revised scale from his/
her junior who is promoted to the higher post on or after
January 01, 2006. The pay of the senior employee shall need
to be stepped up to an amount equal to the pay of the junior
in that higher post. However, the respondent-State has
C/SCA/8114/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/02/2022
thoroughly failed to take into consideration the said Rule
while denying the benefit of stepping up to the petitioners.
16. Further, Rule 7 of the Rules, 2009 provides to the
effect that if the minimum of the revised pay band/ pay scale
is more than the amount arrived at as per sub-rule (i) of Rule
7(A), the pay shall be fixed at the minimum of the revised
pay band/pay scale. It would be beneficial to reproduce the
relevant Rule 7(A), which inter alia reads as under :
7. Fixation of initial pay in the revised pay structure :
xxx xxx xxx
(A) in case of all employees :
i. the pay in the pay band/pay scale will be determined by
multiplying the existing basic pay as on 1.1.2006 by a factor of
1.86 and rounding off the resultant figure to the next multiple of
10.
ii. if the minimum of the revised pay band/ pay scale is more
than the amount arrived at as per (i) above, the pay shall be fixed
at the minimum of the revised pay band/ pay scale;
17. Insofar as the present petitioners are concerned, in their case,
the minimum of the revised pay band/ pay scale is more than the
amount arrived at as per Rule 7(A)(i) above and, therefore, in view
of aforesaid Rule 7(A)(ii) of the Rules, 2009, their pay is required
to be fixed at the minimum of the revised pay band/ pay scale,
which in the present case comes to Rs.12540/- and Rs.10810/-
respectively qua the petitioners of Special Civil Application
No.12207 of 2014 and others, whereas in fact and in reality, those
petitioners have been granted the pay band/pay scale of Rs.12090/-
and Rs.9300/- respectively.
18. Further, the very Rules, 2009, provide for explanations of
the Rules in the form of various Notes, whereby Note 4 of the
Rules, 2009, reads as under :
"Note 4 : Where in the fixation of pay under sub-rule (1),
the pay of a Government servant, who, in the existing scale
st
was drawing immediately before the 1 day of January,
2006 more pay than another Government servant junior to
him in the same cadre, gets fixed in the revised pay band at
C/SCA/8114/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/02/2022
a stage lower than that of such junior, his pay shall be
stepped upto the same stage in the revised pay band as that
of the junior.
19.Thus, even on perusal of the said Note 4 also, it clearly
transpires that the stepping up of pay of a Government servant,
who, in the existing scale was drawing immediately before the
st
1 day of January, 2006 more pay than his junior in the same cadre
is permitted. In otherwords, if the pay of a senior employee in the
very cadre gets fixed in the revised pay band at a stage lower than
that of such junior, his pay has to be stepped upto the same stage in
the revised pay band as that of his juniors.
20.Here in the present case also, the petitioners were appointed
prior to January 01, 2006 and their juniors were appointed on
or after January 01, 2006, however, the pay in pay band of the
juniors of the petitioners was fixed higher than that of the present
petitioners and, thus, there is apparent anomaly in the salary being
paid to the petitioners as against their juniors."
11.2 The Letters Patent Appeal against this order of the learned Single
Judge also failed and the Division Bench held as under:
"9. In view of the above discussion, these appeals are partly
allowed by modifying the impugned judgment in the
following terms:
(1) The appellants-original respondent authorities are hereby
directed to step up the pay of the petitioners of Special Civil
Application No.12207 of 2014 by placing them at
Rs.12,540/- in the pay band of Rs.9300-34800 (PB2) from
1.4.2010 with arrears and to pay periodical rise and with
other consequential benefits as per Government Resolution
dated 14.9.2011.
(2) The appellants-original respondent authorities are hereby
directed to step up the pay of the petitioners of Special Civil
Application No.18619 of 2014, 2965 of 2015 and 4716 of
2015 by placing them at Rs.10,810/- in the pay band of
Rs.9300-34800 (PB-2) from 1.4.2010 with arrears and to pay
periodical rise and with other consequential benefits as per
Government Resolution dated 14.9.2011.
(3) The pay of the petitioners in the respective pay scales be
calculated and accordingly they be paid such amounts on
C/SCA/8114/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/02/2022
regular basis.
(4) The said exercise of calculation of pay of the petitioners
and payment of arrears shall be completed within a period of
two months from the date of receipt of this order.
(5) The original petitioners are not entitled to get the interest
@9% p.a. from the date of their entitlement. The impugned
order of the learned Single Judge qua grant of interest is set
aside.
Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent."
11.3 What is evident from the stand of the State is that the pay of the
petitioner had to be fixed and the rule that was applicable was Rule 13 of
the Rules, 2009 and therefore in case of promotion the manner prescribed
under Rule 13 had to be followed which ought to have been followed and
the benefit of Rule 8 to the petitioner was given by mistake. The second
ground on which the pay fixation revision and consequential revision of
pension is refused on the ground is that the petitioner was not a party to
the litigation which is extensively reproduced hereinabove.
12. Dealing with the first contention of the respondents in context of
the applicability of Rules, 2009 on the ground that the petitioner was
promoted on 12.08.2011 and therefore was not entitled to the benefit of
Rule 8 but was to be placed and the pay fixed in accordance with Rule 13
appears to be misconceived. The order of promotion dated 12.08.2011,
by which the petitioner was promoted to the establishment of the High
Court as Principal Private Secretary, is on record (page 18). Amongst the
incumbents who are so promoted, there are 18 others.
12.1 Perusal of the affidavit-in-reply of the High Court and the
submission made by the Registrar (Recruitment & Finance) to the
Registrar General for the implementation of the decision of the High
Court, Rules 8 and 13 were extensively quoted and in context of the cadre
of Principal Private Secretaries, details of the pay fixation were set out
which indicate that their pay fixation was in accordance with Rule 13.
C/SCA/8114/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/02/2022
Reference is also made to certain other Principal Private Secretaries and
Private Secretaries who were promoted after 12.08.2011 after an
extensive extract of pay fixation made in accordance with Rules 8 and 13,
the Registrar General's approval was sought which reads as under:
"In view of what is stated herein above, this is submitted to
Your Honour for seeking direction as to whether we may
proceed with the pay fixation of the above stated
Officers/Employees listed at Serial No. 1 to 39, as illustrated
hereinabove and the difference of pay and allowances which
accrues due to the said fixation with effect from the date of
their entitlement may be paid by preparing a supplementary
bill in their favour, as per directions given by the
Honourable High Court (Coram : Honourable the Chief
Justice Mr. R. Subhash Reddy and Honourable Mr. Justice
Vipul M. Pancholi) in LPA No. 794/2016 in Special Civil
Application No. 2072 of 2016 and LPA No. 652/2016 in
Special Civil Application No. 12207 of 2014, vide
Judgement dated 15/09/2016, with same subject matter.
AND
If approved by Your Honour, we may forward the cases of
the Officers/Employees listed at Serial No. 33 to 35, 36, 38
to 49, to the Director of Accounts and Treasury, Pay
Verification Unit, Block No. 17, Ground Floor, Dr. Jivraj
Mehta Bhavan, Gandhinagar, for verification and approval
of pay fixation of the Officers/Employees who have been
granted Higher Grade Scale, and pay refixed in view of the
directions given by the Honourable High Court (Coram :
Honourable the Chief Justice Mr. R. Subhash Reddy and
Honourable Mr. Justice Vipul M. Pancholi) in LPA No.
794/2016 in Special Civil Application No. 2072 of 2016 and
LPA No. 652/2016 in Special Civil Application No. 12207
of 2014, vide Judgement dated 15/09/2016.
OR
If approved by Your Honour, we may proceed with the pay
fixation of Officers/Employees listed at Serial No. 33 to 35,
C/SCA/8114/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/02/2022
36, 38 to 49, as illustrated hereinabove and the difference of
pay and allowances which accrues due to the said fixation,
with effect from the date of their entitlement may be paid by
preparing a supplementary bill in their favour as per
directions given by the Honourable High Court (Coram :
Honourable the Chief Justice Mr. R. Subhash Reddy and
Honourable Mr. Justice Vipul M. Pancholi) in LPA No.
794/2016 in Special Civil Application No. 2072 of 2016 and
LPA No. 652/2016 in Special Civil Application No. 12207
of 2014, vide Judgement dated 15/09/2016, with same
subject matter, subject to the approval from Director of
Accounts and Treasury, Pay Verification Unit, Block No. 17,
Ground Floor, Dr. Jivraj Mehta Bhavan, Gandhinagar."
12.2 Admittedly and not disputed, the beneficiaries of the promotion
order dated 12.08.2011 were part of this submission.
12.3 It is in this context that the Registrar General was faced with a
submission in the case of the petitioner. The Registrar General approved
the pay fixation of the petitioner in accordance with the decision of the
Division Bench in the Letters Patent Appeal and a pay certificate was
issued and the arrears was paid on revision. Correspondences of the high
Court are on record in context of the petitioner for giving pay
verification. It appears that the only ground on which the petitioner's pay
verification was not approved viz-a-viz the 7th Pay Commission is that the
petitioner was not a party to the litigation and hence cannot be given
such benefits. This is evident from the communication dated 07.06.2019
annexed to the affidavit-in-reply of the High Court on its administrative
side.
13. Reading the communication dated 05.10.2019 issued by the legal
department, it is evident that, conscious of the resolution dated
22.08.2015, which the General Administrative Department of the State
has issued stating that in case where there are decisions of the Court,
similarly situated employees need not approach the court and they would
C/SCA/8114/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/02/2022
be extended the benefits, the legal department asked the High Court on its
administrative side to forward the case of the petitioner. Not less than 20
reminders by the High Court on its administrative side to the legal
department are on record. Reading these reminders would indicate that
the Secretary of the Legal Department was requested to move the
government for approval granting entry level pay to the employees
working on the establishment of the High Court who had not filed any
court matter before the court. Also a reference was made that a
representation had been received from the Principal Private Secretaries
and Section Officers working on the establishment of the High Court of
Gujarat who have not preferred petitions before the High Court but they
have requested to release the third installment of arrears due to the
implementation of the 7th Pay Commission. The question of considering
them similarly situated employees is not finalized by the State and the
release of the 3rd installment of the 7th Pay Commission is not being given
and the stickers accordingly are not issued which may be considered
expeditiously.
" NO. N/ /2021
Date:- /06/2021
To,
The Secretary to Government of Gujarat,
Legal Department, Sachivalay,
Gandhinagar.
Subject: Grant of Entry Level Pay to similarly situated
employees as per order dated 24/03/2009 passed in
SCA No. 1314/2009 by the Honourable High Court of
Gujarat and in view of Circular No.
SNR/102004/U.O./2014/G.R dated 22/08/2014 issued
by the G.A.D., Government of Gujarat, Gandhinagar.
Reference: (1) Your letter No. SCA/102014/2822/D dated
05/10/2019 and
Reminder dated 25/10/2019.
(2) High Court Letter No.N/1671/2019 dated 19/11/2019.
(3) High Court Letter No.N/148/2020 dated 05/02/2020.
(4) High Court Letter No.N/286/2020 dated 06/03/2020.
(5) High Court Letter No.N/412/2020 dated 19/06/2020.
(6) High Court Letter No.N/618/2020 dated 04/09/2020.
C/SCA/8114/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/02/2022
(7) High Court Letter No.N/677/2020 dated 30/09/2020.
(8) High Court Letter No.N/879/2020 dated 16/12/2020.
(9) High Court Letter No.N/67/2021 dated 08/01/2021.
(10) High Court Letter No.N/139/2021 dated 25/01/2021.
(11) High Court Letter No.N/175/2021 dated 02/02/2021.
(12) High Court Letter No.N/550/2021 dated 09/04/2021.
Respected Sir,
With reference to the subject noted above and in
response to your letter and reminder and under reference of
High Court letter/reminders, you are requested to move the
Government for getting approval/granting Entry Level Pay
to the employees working on the establishment of this High
Court of Gujarat who have not filed any court matter before
the Honourable High Court but extending the benefit of
Entry Level Pay considering them similarly situated
employees as per directions issued by the Honourable Court
(Coram: Honourable the Chief Justice Mr. Justice R.
Subhash Reddy and Honourable Mr. Justice Vipul M.
Pancholi) in LPA No.794/2016 vide Order dated
15/09/2016 and the Judgment dated 24/03/2009 passed in
Special Civil Application NO.1314/2009 by the
Honourable High Court (Coram: Honourable Mr.
Justice M. R. Shah).
Further, vide representation dated 01/02/2021 the
Principal Private Secretaries and Section Officers, working
on the establishment of the High Court of Gujarat (list
attached therewith) who have not preferred petition before
the Hon'ble High Court, but they have requested to release
the 3rd installment of arrears due to implementation of the 7 th
pay Commission as per G.R. No.PGR-102015-474-18-
PAGAR/EKAM DATED 13/03/2018. However question of
considering them on similarly situated is yet to be finalized
by the Government and hence this office is not in a position
to release their 3rd installment of arrears of the 7th pay
commission.
I am further to state that following employees have
been retired and/or expired as shown dates against their
name. Their cases have not been approved by the Pay
Verification Unit, Gandhinagar as they have not preferred
C/SCA/8114/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/02/2022
any petition before this Honourable High Court and given
the benefit of entry level pay considering their cases as
similarly situated persons in view of the Judgment dated
24/03/2009 passed in Special Civil Application
NO.1314/2009 by the Honourable High Court (Coram:
Honourable Mr. Justice M. R. Shah) and in view of the
instructions issued vide Government of Gujarat Circular No.
SNR/102004/U.O./2014/G.R. dated 22/08/2014.
Sr. Name of the Designation Date of
No. Employees Retd./Expir
ed
1 Mr. K.H. Dy. Registrar 27/04/2020
Dwivedi(Expired)
2 Ms. H.K. Iyer P.P.S. 31/12/2016
3 Mrs. R.Y. Dave Dy. Section 31/05/2017
Officer
4 Mr. S.M. Purohit Dy. Section 31/03/2018
Officer
Therefore, you are once again requested to expedite
this matter personally and move before the Government for
approval/granting of such cases so as to enable the Registry
to comply the benefit as per G.R. No.PGR-102015-474-18-
PAGAR/EKAM DATED 13/03/2018.
This may please be treated as MOST URGENT.
Yours Faithfully,
Registrar (Recruitment & Finance)"
14. Despite all these reminders, the petitioner has had to approach this
court admittedly though being similarly situated.
15. On twin counts, therefore, the objection of the respondent State
that since the petitioner was entitled to her pay fixation as per Rule 13 on
being promoted on 12.08.2011 is without merit. Beneficiaries of the
C/SCA/8114/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/02/2022
order of 12.08.2011 who were petitioners to the petition have been
extended the benefits of stepping up of pay, their pay fixation in
accordance with the 7th Pay Commission have been done and they have
been released the 7th pay Commission albeit there are petitioners who
have approached this court that their 3rd installment is not being released
which is Special Civil Application No. 16105 of 2021.
15.1 Admittedly, based on the judgment of the Division Bench in
Letters Patent Appeal No. 794 of 2016, the petitioner has been paid
arrears. Her last pay slip records that she is extended the benefit of 7 th
Pay Commission. There is no reason therefore that her pension payment
order should also not reflect the pay that she was drawing on the date
when she retired in accordance with Rule 2(56) which defines
pensionable pay. The resolution dated 22.08.2014 stares in the face of
the respondent State. It envisages a policy that a similarly situated
employee shall not be compelled to approach the court for a similar relief
in case of he/she being similarly situated. The stand of the legal
department itself by communication of 07.06.2019 fails to reason.
16. Moreover, in a recent decision of this Court rendered in Special
Civil Application No. 6653 of 2020, this Court has granted the benefit of
the resolution in case of promotion also. The relevant paragraphs are
reproduced hereinbelow:
"10. This Court finds that learned Co-ordinate Bench in
Special Civil Application No. 20749 of 2016 in decision
dated 24.09.2019 relying upon earlier decision of this Court
in Special Civil Application No. 12207 of 2014 dated
19.10.2015 modified partly by the Hon'ble Division Bench
vide jdugement dated 15.09.2016 in Letters Patent Appeal
No. 652 of 2016. In the said judgement, the Court was
concerned with two separate sets of petitions where
employees in pay band of Rs. 9300-34800 in grade pay of
Rs. 4600/- had requested to be placed at entry level pay of
C/SCA/8114/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/02/2022
Rs. 12540/- from 01.04.2010 and employees in pay band of
Rs. 9300-34800 in the grade pay of Rs. 4400/- had requested
for placing them at entry level pay of Rs. 10810/- with effect
from 01.04.2010. Since benefits corresponding to grade pay
of Rs. 4400/- had been sought for in Special Civil
Application No. 20749 of 2016 and learned Co-ordinate
Bench had relying upon the decision referred to hereinabove
granted such a prayer. Now the petitioner is seeking for
benefits corresponding to grade pay of Rs. 4600/-. It clearly
appears that reasoning for grant of benefits of being given
entry level pay as direct recruitees after 01.01.2006
corresponding to grade pay of Rs. 4400/- or grade pay of Rs.
4600/- by the Co-ordinate Bench and the Hon'ble Division
Bench in the decision relied upon order dated 24.09.2019 in
Special Civil Application No. 20749 of 2016 are common.
The grievance was also raised in context of Government
Resolution dated 14.09.2011 by which direct/fresh recruitees
after 01.01.2006 in grade pay of Rs. 4400/- or Rs. 4600/-
would be paid entry level pay of Rs. 10810/- or Rs. 12540/-
respectively. The learned Single Judge and Hon'ble Division
Bench in decision referred to in order 24.09.2019 directed
inter alia that petitioners who were promotees appointed
prior to 01.01.2006 would be discriminated by placing them
in the pay band of Rs 9300/- or Rs. 12090/- corresponding to
grade pay of Rs. 4400/- and Rs. 4600/- respectively.
11. Learned Co-ordinate Bench in Special Civil Application
No. 20749 of 2016 vide decision dated 24.09.2019 had
accepted the claim of the petitioner for re-fixation of entry
level pay of Rs. 10810/- in pay band of Rs. 9300/- with
grade pay of Rs. 4400/-. The fixation of entry level pay of
Rs.10810/- was in context of grade pay drawn by the
petitioner at the rate of Rs. 4400/- at that relevant point of
time. Subsequently as noted hereinabove grade pay of
petitioner had been revised to Rs. 4600/- with effect from
16.03.2009 i.e. the date of promotion of the petitioner as
Stenographer Grade II. Thus since decision of the learned
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application
No. 12207 of 2014 vide order dated 19.10.2015 partly
modified by the Hon'ble Division Bench in Letters Patent
Appeal No. 652 of 2016 and allied matters had upheld the
claim of employees who had been appointed before
01.01.2006 for being granted the entry level pay at the rate
C/SCA/8114/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/02/2022
of Rs. 12540/- corresponding to grade pay of Rs. 4600/- and
Rs. 10810/- corresponding to grade pay of Rs. 4400/- as
made available to the direct recruitees after 01.01.2006 as
entry level pay vide Government Resolution dated
14.09.2011 and since learned Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court had upheld the claim of the petitioner for grant of
entry level pay of Rs. 10810/- corresponding to grade pay
Rs. 4400/- relying upon earlier decision referred to
hereinabove. Furthermore the reasons with regard to entry
level pay at the rate of Rs. 10810/- corresponding to grade
pay of Rs. 4400/- and Rs. 12540/- corresponding to grade
pay of Rs.4600/-to be granted in favour of pre 01.01.2006
employees being similar, and since the decision of learned
Co-ordinate Bench not having been challenged by the
respondents and thus having become final between the
parties more particularly since benefits as available vide
order dated 29.04.2019 appears to have been paid to the
petitioner, therefore in the considered opinion of this Court
the petitioner would be consequently entitled to benefit of
entry level pay of Rs. 12540/- in pay scale of Rs 9300-34800
with the grade pay of Rs. 4600/-.
12. It requires to be mentioned herein that though learned
Advocate Ms. Trusha Patel on behalf of respondent no.2 had
attempted to contend that petitioner would not be entitled to
entry level pay of Rs. 12540/- corresponding to entry level
pay granted to direct rectuitees after 01.01.2006 appointed in
grade pay of Rs. 4600/- in the considered opinion of this
Court, since order dated 29.04.2019 having not been
challenged by respondent no.2 and rather the said order
having been implemented, and as noted hereinabove the
reasoning for grant of entry level pay of Rs. 10810/- in pay
band/scale of Rs. 9300-34800/- in grade pay of Rs. 4400/- as
directed by the learned Co-ordinate Bench being the same
reasoning as mentioned by the learned Single Judge as well
as Hon'ble Division Bench in the earlier petitions, such
submission of learned Advocate Shri Patel cannot be
countenanced.
13. In the result petition is allowed. The petitioner would be
entitled to refixation of entry level pay of Rs. 12540/- in the
pay band/scale of Rs. 9300-34800 along with grade pay of
Rs. 4600/- and that arrears and its periodical rise with effect
C/SCA/8114/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/02/2022
from 01.04.2010, such arrears shall be paid by the
respondent authorities within a period of two months from
the date of receipt fo this order. It is clarified that the
petitioner having been paid the benefits as available vide
order dated 29.04.2019, the petitioner would be entitled to
the difference. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No
order as to costs."
17. For the aforesaid reasons, petition is allowed. The respondents are
directed to forthwith fix the pension and other retirement benefits on the
basis of the petitioner having drawn her pay in the pay-scale of Rs.67700-
208700 at the time of her retirement. The petitioner is also entitled to
arrears on the recomputation of revised pension based on this pay-scale.
The entire exercise of paying the arrears shall be granted within a period
of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The court
would have extended the benefit of interest to the petitioner as was done
by learned Single Judge of this court, however, conscious of the fact that
the Division Bench modified the order and the petitioners therein were
not entitled to get interest, the prayer of interest is not entertained. Rule
is made absolute.
ORDER IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16150 OF 2021
1. This is a petition filed by the petitioners who are serving on the
establishment of the High Court in different cadres. The pay of the
petitioners based on the decision rendered by this court in Special Civil
Application No. 12270 of 2014 and the Division Bench in Letters Patent
Appeal No. 652 of 2016 came to be revised with effect from 01.01.2016
and the petitioners have been paid two installments of the revised 7 th Pay
Commission benefits in March and May 2018. The petitioners have been
constrained to file the present petition as the third installment which was
C/SCA/8114/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/02/2022
due and payable by July 2018 has not been paid. Further as per
procedure, the 7th Pay fixation sticker is to be fixed in the service book of
each employee which has not been done. It is the case of the petitioners
that so far as co-employees are concerned, they have already been paid
the 3rd installment and stickers have been placed in their service book.
Written representations have been made from time to time. It is the case
of the petitioners that the arrears of the 3 rd tranche have been withheld on
the ground that the petitioners were not parties to the litigation in Special
Civil Application No. 12207 of 2014. Accordingly, the prayer of the
petitioners in the present petition is to direct the respondent authorities to
pay 3rd installment of arrears of difference of pay upon fixation of pay of
the petitioners pursuant to the Gujarat Civil Services (Revision of Pay)
Rules, 2016 and direct the respondent authorities to complete the process
of affixing the sticker of 7th pay fixation in service book of each of the
petitioners forthwith.
2. The stand of the State Government has been explained in the
petition of the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 8114 of 2021.
The stand of the State is that since they were not parties to the litigation
the benefits should not be extended to such petitioners. While
considering the stand of the High Court of Gujarat on its administrative
side, the reply filed in Special Civil Application No. 8114 of 2021 has
been considered wherein reproduction is made to the recommendations of
the High Court even in context of the release of the 3 rd installment and the
stickers of the 7th Pay Commission to be given to the present petitioners.
3. Clearly for the reasons stated in Special Civil Application No.
8114 of 2021 which is allowed and the stand of the State that since the
petitioners were not party to the litigation, the benefits could not be given
has been set aside, adopting the same reasons, the present petition is
allowed. The respondents are directed to release the 3rd installment of
C/SCA/8114/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/02/2022
arrears of difference of pay of the 7th Pay Commission to the petitioners
within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this
order. The respondents are further directed to complete the process of
affixing the sticker of the 7th Pay Commission in the service book of each
of the petitioners forthwith in the time frame as stipulated hereinabove.
Rule is made absolute accordingly.
(BIREN VAISHNAV, J)
DIVYA
