Gujarat High Court
Paschim Gujarat Vij Company ... vs Babulal Kanubhai Khared on 2 March, 2022
Bench: Hemant M. Prachchhak
C/LPA/70/2022 ORDER DATED: 02/03/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 70 of 2022
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17646 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 70 of 2022
==========================================================
PASCHIM GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED
Versus
BABULAL KANUBHAI KHARED
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 02/03/2022
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA)
1.0. Heard Mr. Dipak Dave, learned advocate for the appellant.
2.0. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order dated 09.07.2021 passed in Special Civil
Application No.17646 of 2017, the appellant- Electricity Company
has preferred present appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
3.0. We have heard Mr. Dave, learned advocate for the appellant
extensively. The record indicates that the respondent- original
petitioner challenged the communications dated 08.08.2008 and
5.10.2013 and also prayed for grant of Higher Grade to the original
respondent on the post of Deputy Engineer w.e.f. 2007. It was the
case of the original petitioner that he completed 9 years in 2007
and therefore, as per the General Standing Order of the appellant
Electricity Company being No.253. According to respondent-
original petitioner, he was entitled for the higher grade pay. The
C/LPA/70/2022 ORDER DATED: 02/03/2022
learned Single Judge after considering the submission made has
observed thus:
16. Having heard learned advocates for the respective
parties it appears that the appeal filed by the
petitioner against the adverse remarks for the year
2003 was not decided on merits as the Reporting &
Reviewing authority had retired before such appeal
was taken up for hearing. Therefore, the decision of
not to expunge the adverse remarks is not in
accordance with law. The office note dated
08.08.2008 clearly discloses that no any adverse
remarks given in the CR except not residing in the
head quarter though the specific instructions was
given to the petitioner to reside in the Head Quarter
was made in the CR of the year 2003. In such
circumstances, the respondent-company without
verifying the facts, came to the conclusion not to
expunge the remarks so as to deny the higher grade
to the petitioner.
17. It appears that the respondent-company has
adopted an absolutely bureaucratic and pendatic
approach to deny the higher pay on completion of 09
years of service contrary to the provision of the GSO
No. 253. Remark of not residing in Head Quarter
cannot be considered as so grave adverse remarks to
deny the higher pay grade to the petitioner though he
was entitled to the same on completion of 09 years of
service. Moreover, the appellate authority has also
not considered the aspect of expunging such remarks
on the ground that the Reporting & Reviewing
authority had retired prior to consideration of the
appeal and accordingly by mechanical approach, the
appellate authority refused to expunge the adverse
remarks. In such circumstances, the petitioner
cannot be deprived of higher pay grade to which he
was entitled on completion of 09 years of service on
the post of Deputy Executive Engineer.
18. It is also pertinent to note that even in the year
2013 the petitioner was informed that the appellate
authority did not consider to expunge the adverse
remarks for the year 2003 without giving any reason
in support thereof. The appellate authority has
refused to expunge adverse remarks in absence of
any comments of the Reporting & Reviewing authority
as the said authority had already retired prior to
consideration of the appeal filed by the petitioner. In
C/LPA/70/2022 ORDER DATED: 02/03/2022
such circumstances, the appellate authority ought to
have considered the fact that the adverse remarks of
not residing in Head Quarter cannot be so grave to
deny the higher pay grade to the petitioner and such
remarks ought to have been expunged considering
the length of services of the petitioner with
respondent company and erstwhile GEB.
19. For the foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds
and is accordingly allowed. The impugned orders and
letters dated 08.08.2008 and 05.10.2013 passed by
the competent authority of the respondent-company
are hereby quashed and set aside.
20. The respondent is directed to pay the arrears on
the basis of the calculation to be made for higher pay
grade payable to the petitioner from 2007 onwards as
per GSO No. 253. Such calculation to be made and
arrears to be paid to the petitioner within a period of
Eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order
failing which, the petitioner shall be entitled to the
interest @ of 9% per annum from the expiry of the 08
weeks. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
No order as to costs.
4. We are in complete agreement with the observations made by
the learned Single Judge. However, we make it clear that this
observation shall apply to the peculiar facts of this case only and
shall not treated as precedent. Time granted by the learned Single
Judge as observed in para 20 is extended till 31.5.2022. Thereafter,
the respondent shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% pa as
provided by the learned Single Judge. Appeal is disposed of
accordingly.
As the appeal is disposed of, connected civil application
would not survive and stand disposed of.
sd/-
(R.M.CHHAYA,J)
sd/-
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
KAUSHIK J. RATHOD
