State Of Gujarat vs Bhavnaben Hiteshkumar Patel
2022 Latest Caselaw 8860 Guj

     C/LPA/1273/2022                            ORDER DATED: 06/10/2022




       IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

         R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1273 of 2022
                              In
        R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10793 of 2021
                            With
         CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
        In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1273 of 2022
=============================================
                            STATE OF GUJARAT
                                 Versus
                       BHAVNABEN HITESHKUMAR PATEL
=============================================
Appearance:
MR TIRTHRAJ PANDYA, AGP for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
 for the Respondent(s) No. 1
SWAPNESHWAR GOUTAM(9051) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4,5
=============================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.J.DESAI
       and
       HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT

                            Date : 06/10/2022
                         ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.J.DESAI)

1. By way of present Letters Patent Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the appellant has challenged the oral judgment dated 15.02.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in captioned writ petition by which the learned Single Judge has accepted the case of the original petitioner and directed the respondent to grant benefit of first higher pay scale i.e. 2000- 3500 on completion of 9 years of service from the date of original petitioner's respective date of appointment with all consequential benefits.

2. That, it was the case of the original petitioner that she was appointed as Mukhya Sevika Class-III after following the due selection process during the years 1978 to 1983 and in

C/LPA/1273/2022 ORDER DATED: 06/10/2022

view of the existing Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994, she would be entitled for higher pay scale on completion of 9 years of service. Since no examinations were held for 9 years, the original petitioner was entitled for the benefit of higher pay scale i.e. Rs.2000-3500. The claim put forward by the original petitioner was not considered and therefore, the original petitioner was constrained to file the aforesaid writ petition.

3. Reliance was placed by the original petitioner on an oral order dated 09.02.2017 rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.211 of 2017.

4. The petition was opposed by the respondent by filing affidavit in reply. The learned Single Judge after hearing both the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considering the fact that the case of all the original petitioner was at par with the employees in the Letters Patent Appeal No.211 of 2017, allowed all the petitions. Hence, present Letters Patent Appeal.

5. Learned AGP Mr. Tirthraj Pandya appearing for the appellants - State Authorities would submit that the case of the present respondent - original petitioner is different than the case of the employees in the Letters Patent Appeal No.211 of 2017. On query, the learned AGP was unable to establish the difference between the employees who were party in Letters Patent Appeal No.211 of 2017 and the present respondent - original petitioner.

6. Learned advocate Mr. Swapneshwar Goutam appearing for the original petitioner would submit that in case of other

C/LPA/1273/2022 ORDER DATED: 06/10/2022

similarly situated employees, the State Authorities have complied with the impugned order and therefore, has requested to dismiss the present appeal.

7. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having gone through the oral order dated 09.02.2017 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.211 of 2017 by the Division Bench, which has now become final and considering the observations made by the learned Single Judge in the impugned oral order, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned oral order.

8. In view of above discussion, present Letters Patent Appeals is dismissed. It is reported that in some of the cases, the State Authorities have partially complied with the impugned oral order and 2/3 rd amount is already paid to the original petitioner. Therefore, the appellant is hereby directed to comply full with the impugned oral order passed by the learned Single Judge within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the present order.

9. In view of dismissal of Letters Patent Appeal, Civil Application (For Stay) would not survive and are dismissed accordingly.

(A.J.DESAI, J)

(MAUNA M. BHATT,J) T. J. Bharwad