State Of Gujarat vs Parmar Ushaben Ambalal
2022 Latest Caselaw 9136 Guj

     C/LPA/1333/2022                                 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2022




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

        R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1333 of 2022
                            In
       R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7008 of 2019
                           With
        CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
                            In
        R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1333 of 2022
=============================================
                           STATE OF GUJARAT
                                Versus
                       PARMAR USHABEN AMBALAL
=============================================
Appearance:
MS DIVYANGNA JHALA, AGP for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR RAMNANDAN SINGH(1126) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=============================================

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

                     Date : 14/10/2022
                      ORAL ORDER

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

1. By way of present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the appellants - original respondents have challenged the common oral judgment dated 02.02.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.6973 of 2019 and other allied writ petitions, by which, learned Single Judge has accepted the case of the original petitioner and directed present appellants - original respondents to grant benefit of first higher pay scale i.e. 2000- 3500 on completion of 9 years of service from the date of petitioner's 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

C/LPA/1333/2022 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2022

selection process on 02.06.1983 and in 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 examination was 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 present appellants - original respondents 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 the original petitioner was at par with the employees in the Letters Patent Appeal No.211 of 2017, allowed the petition. Hence, present Letters Patent Appeal.

5. Ms. Divyangna, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for present appellants - State Authorities, would submit that the case of present respondent No.1 - 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 present respondent No.1 - original petitioner.

6. Mr. Ramnandan Singh, learned advocate appearing for the original petitioner, would submit that in case of other similarly

C/LPA/1333/2022 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2022

situated employees, the State Authorities have complied with the impugned order. He would further submit that the impugned order in this petition was challenged by the State Authorities by filing Letters Patent Appeal No. 1165 of 2022 and allied matters and the same were dismissed and, therefore, has requested to dismiss 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 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 Appeal is dismissed. The appellants are hereby directed to comply full with the impugned oral order passed by learned Single Judge within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of present order.

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

(A.J.DESAI, J)

(MAUNA M. BHATT,J) *F.S.KAZI.....