Gujarat High Court
Anand District Panchayat vs Mahendrasinh A. Rana on 27 July, 2022
Bench: A.Y. Kogje
C/SCA/18796/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/07/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18796 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
================================================================
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 ?
================================================================
ANAND DISTRICT PANCHAYAT
Versus
MAHENDRASINH A. RANA & 1 other(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR IQBAL M MALIK(434) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
===============================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
Date : 27/07/2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
[1] This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
is filed challenging the order dated 10.01.2017 passed by the
Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal at Gandhinagar in Appeal
No.50/2004 by which the respondent was directed to be paid
the first higher pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 in the cadre of
Senior Clerk w.e.f. 16.06.1999 as by that time, the respondent
had completed more than nine years in one cadre and
therefore, the benefit of the Government Resolution, governing
the grant of higher pay-scale dated 16.08.1994 was extended.
C/SCA/18796/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/07/2022
[2] The petitioner before this Court is the District Panchayat
which has raised a contention that the Tribunal was unable to
appreciate the contention of the petitioner with regards to the
grant of higher pay scale as the petitioner who was in the scale
of Rs.4000/- to 6000/- had not reached upto the basic pay of
of Rs.6000/- and thereafter, had not stagnated for a period of
one year in the pay of Rs.6000/- and therefore, he was not
entitled to receive the benefit. Learned advocate has drawn
attention of this Court to the relevant portion of resolution of
1994, indicating that it is only on completion of one year after
reaching at the maximum stage in the pay-scale of concerned
higher/promotion post whichever is later, the concerned
employee shall be payable second and third higher scale from
that date.
[3] Learned advocate appearing for the respondent has
taken this Court through the documents placed on record
which indicated the chronology of pay-scales of the respondent
and after 1987, the increment was given. Learned advocate
has submitted that the simply calculating the date on which
the petitioner was given promotion in the post of Senior Clerk,
the respondent was not given any other promotion for a period
of 9 years and therefore, according to the Government
Resolution, the petitioner had stagnated and therefore, entitled
to the higher pay-scale in the cadre of Senior Clerk.
[4] The Court has heard learned advocates for the parties
and perused the documents placed on record. From the record,
it appears that the respondent had entered into service w.e.f.
01.01.1976 and was for the first time given higher pay scale
w.e.f. 01.06.1987 by passing an order dated 07.01.1992.
C/SCA/18796/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/07/2022
[5] From the record, it appears that the petitioner was
promoted as Senior Clerk on 16.06.1990 and thereafter, was
promoted as Deputy Accountant by order dated 29.03.2005.
Apparently, the petitioner had continued on the post of Senior
Clerk since 1990 to 2005. It is coming on record that the
petitioner was given higher pay scale in the cadre of Senior
Clerk w.e.f. 2002. The Tribunal has taken into consideration the
relevant portion of the resolution of 1994 and after considering
the fact that the petitioner who was promoted in the year 1990
in the cadre of Senior Clerk has continued as such for more
than period of 9 years and therefore, has held that in the year
1999, the petitioner having completed period of 9 years was
entitled to the benefit as per the Government Resolution of
1994. The sole contention raised by the petitioner by
contending that the employee has to stagnate for a period of
more than one year after reaching the maximum stage in the
pay-scale. Apparently, the argument is that the petitioner
ought to have stagnated at the maximum stage in the pay-
scale of Senior Clerk which in the opinion of the Court is not
the purport of the Government Resolution, where the exact
language of the Government Resolution would read as under:-
"....Whereas on the completion of 18 and 27 years in the pay
scale of concerned grade after 1 st June 1987, or on completion
of one year after reaching at the maximum stage in the pay
scale of concerned higher/promotion post, whichever is late,
the concerned employee shall be payable second and third
Higher Grade Scale from that date. But he/she should not
have got more than two promotions/Higher Grade Scales
before that....."
[6] The simple reading of the aforesaid would clearly indicate
that the reference to the pay-scale of concerned
higher/promotion post in the present case will not be that of a
Senior Clerk and therefore, the Court, the respondent was
C/SCA/18796/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/07/2022
entitled to the benefit which has been correctly awarded by
the Tribunal in its impugned order. Therefore, no case is made
out for any interference. The petition therefore, deserves to be
and the same is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged.
(A.Y. KOGJE, J)
SIDDHARTH
