Gujarat High Court

Mukeshkumar Pravinchandra Joshi vs Gujarat Water Supply And Sewerage ... on 9 September, 2022

Bench: Biren Vaishnav

     C/SCA/14097/2018                            CAV ORDER DATED: 09/09/2022




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14097 of 2018

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
================================================================

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

2      To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3      Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
       of the judgment ?

4      Whether this case involves a substantial question

of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ?

================================================================ MUKESHKUMAR PRAVINCHANDRA JOSHI Versus GUJARAT WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD & 1 other(s) ================================================================ Appearance:

MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 ================================================================ CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV Date : 09/09/2022 CAV ORDER

1. By way of this petition, under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for a

direction that he should be granted the pay scale of

Rs.5200-20200/-, the Pay-Scale meant for skilled

workers which has been granted to the juniors to the

C/SCA/14097/2018 CAV ORDER DATED: 09/09/2022

petitioners. The petitioner has further prayed for the

direction that arrears arising out of non payment of the

said scale be paid.

2. The facts in brief indicate that it is the case of the

petitioner that he was initially appointed as work-

charge karkoon on 29 days basis. He was so appointed

in 1991. Orders appointing him from time to time have

been produced by the petitioner with the petition.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that by an Order No.329

of 1989, the petitioner was granted fixed pay in the

time scale of Rs.750/- with effect from 1.10.1988. By

Order No.93 of 1993, the petitioner had been

regularized as unskilled workman and was given a Pay-

Scale of Rs.750-940/-. By order dated 16.05.2015 a

revised order granting the Pay-Scale of Rs.5200-

20200/- Class-III cadre was issued as those unskilled

workers who are SSC pass, were required in the said

C/SCA/14097/2018 CAV ORDER DATED: 09/09/2022

scale as per the Resolutions issued by the Government

from time to time. Subsequently it appears that this

order granting the Pay-Scale was withdrawn vide and

order dated 05.06.2015.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that despite the

recommendations made by the higher authorities, the

petitioner has not been granted the Pay-Scale of

Rs.5200-20200/-.

5. Mr T. R. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner

would submit that not granting of the Pay-Scale of

Rs.5200-20200/- when such a scale was granted to his

juniors violates under Article 14 of the Constitution of

India. He would submit that the order passed by the

Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7578 of 2021 would

not be applicable in the facts of the present case.

6. Mr H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate appearing for the

C/SCA/14097/2018 CAV ORDER DATED: 09/09/2022

Board would submit as under:

6.1. Mr. Munshaw would submit that the

petitioner was offered work on a daily wage basis and

was engaged on a nominal muster roll depending on

the availability of work. The Board issued also in light of

the G.R. dated 17.10.1988 issued a Resolution adopting

the said G.R. granting various benefits to Daily Wagers

on completion of their daily wage employment of 5

years, 10 years and 15 years respectively. The Board

has its own Policy, Rules and Regulations and Service

Conditions for its employees as well as Daily Wagers.

6.2. According to the submission of the learned

counsel for the Board, the respondent the Board

adopted the G.R. dated 17.10.1988 vide Circular dated

08.06.1989 and accordingly, the petitioner was granted

the benefits flowing there from on the basis of

completion of 5 years and 10 years respectively. The

C/SCA/14097/2018 CAV ORDER DATED: 09/09/2022

petitioner was granted a fixed pay of Rs.750/- with

effect from 17.02.1981. He was later on released the

benefits of running scale and other benefits in

accordance with the Resolution dated 17 10.1988.

6.3. Later on the Government of Gujarat issued

another Resolution dated 01.05.1991 providing for

some more benefits to SSC pass Daily Wagers.

According to this Resolution SSC passed Daily Wagers

who have completed service of 7 years were to be

given the work of clerical cadre and to be placed in the

Pay-Scale of Rs.950-1500/-. The same Resolution was

later on replaced by a Resolution dated 15.02.1992

providing that such benefit would be available on

completion of service of 10 years. Accordingly, by an

order dated 06.05.2015 since the petitioner was

holding an Educational Qualification of SSC pass the

petitioner was granted the benefit of the Pay-Scale of

Rs.5200-20200/-. Having come to know of the fact that

C/SCA/14097/2018 CAV ORDER DATED: 09/09/2022

the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of the said

Resolution as the Board had not framed any policy for

grant of a pay scale meant for Class-III clerical post, by

an order dated 05.06.2015 the benefit was withdrawn.

A similarly situated employee challenged such order of

withdrawal of the Pay-Scale by filing Special Civil

Application No.16470 of 2018 which was allowed by

this Court. The Board went in Appeal by filing a Letters

Patent Appeal which was allowed by the Division Bench

of this Court. Aggrieved by the order of the Division

Bench, the employee approached the Supreme Court.

Civil Appeal No.7578 of 2021 was decided by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court and by an Order dated

December 17, 2021, the Supreme Court dismissed the

Appeal. In light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief as

prayed for and the petition be dismissed.

7. Considering the submissions made by the learned

C/SCA/14097/2018 CAV ORDER DATED: 09/09/2022

advocates for the respective parties, what is evident

from reading the prayer and the facts in the petition

that it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is

entitled to the benefit of the Pay-Scale of Rs.5200-

20200/-. He was granted the Pay-Scale which was

subsequently withdrawn by an order dated 05.06.2015.

Similar order of withdrawal was a subject-matter of a

challenge in Special Civil Application No.16470 of 2018

which the Coordinate Bench of this Court allowed the

petition. The Board went in Appeal challenging the

order of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Letters

Patent Appeal No.82 of 2020. While considering the

legality of the order of the learned Single Judge and the

Resolutions dated 01.05.1991 and 15.02.1992 and

contentions identical to the one raised in this petition,

the Division Bench held as under:

"[5] Having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, before examining the correctness of order passed by the learned Single Judge, few circumstances are not possible to be unnoticed by us.

[6] The record of the present Letters Patent Appeal indicates

C/SCA/14097/2018 CAV ORDER DATED: 09/09/2022

that a substantial contention of appellant - Board is that though the appellant - Board is under administrative and supervisory control of the government of Gujarat, but still, it has autonomy in applying the Government resolutions, issued from time to time, for various departments under the Government. The appellant - Board is a statutory Board, duly constituted under the provisions of the Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board Act, having its own rules and regulations and takes its own policy decisions in respect of matters related to service conditions and labour matters and the decisions are always subject to the approval of the Government of Gujarat in case of contingency whether to extend the benefit flowing from the Government resolution dated 01.05.1991 is to apply or not is a matter of discretion of the Board and as a policy measure so far the same was not adopted unlike the earlier resolution dated 17.10.1988 and further a clear communication is issued on 05.06.2015 addressed to all the Chief Engineers of all five Zones by the head office that such benefit of 1991 resolution may not be granted and this decision has already been communicated to all concerned in the appellants - Board and same is not under challenge in the petition. And further concept of equal pay would not arise here in this peculiar background. Equal pay is at the best a constitutional goal but this principle is not possible to streach here.

[7] Now to test this basic contention, few circumstances are required to be referred to. First of all, the prayer which has been made in the petition is in simpliciter form to grant benefit of pay scale of Rs.950-1500/- with all concomitant benefits upon completion of ten years and consequential pay scale as per the 5th, 6th, and 7th Pay Commission and there appears to be no challenged to the earlier decision which has been taken by the Board in the month of June, 2015.

[8] In the context of this prayer which has been sought, what has been claimed is based upon the Government resolution dated 01.05.1991, reflecting on page 25(A), a typed copy which is made applicable to Roads and Building Division of the Government and its all sections. No doubt this Government resolution dated 01.05.1991 is giving a pay scale of Rs.950- 1500/- to the daily wager category as stipulated therein, but then in emphatic terms, it has been canvassed before us by the Board that the said resolution has not been adopted by the appellant - Board. On the contrary, it has been found from the record that the Board has come out with a clear stand that this resolution and the subsequent resolution dated

C/SCA/14097/2018 CAV ORDER DATED: 09/09/2022

15.02.1992 have not been made automatically applicable since the Board being statutory body, it has to take its own administration decision. This stand which is reflected in affidavit-in-reply, in clear terms, we would like to reproduce the same since the issue involved is a centre of controversy:

"4. The respnt.no.3 most respectfully submits that Govt. of Gujarat through its Roads & Bldg. Dept. has issued a resolution dated 1.5.91 resolving to grant a benefit of post in Class-III clerical cadre to those daily wagers who are holding qualification of SSC and have put in service of seven years and a copy of the Resolution is annexed as ANNEXURE-C. It is submitted that accordingly such beneficiaries were to be placed in the pay scale of Rs.950-1500. It is submitted that Govt. of Gujarat through its Narmada and Water Resources Dept. also issued a resolution on 15.2.92 and a copy of the resolution is annexed as ANNEXURED. It is pertinent to note that such resolution is not automatically applicable to Gujarat Water Supply and Sewage Board as it is a statutory body and it has to take its own administrative decision considering various aspects including financial restrains. The respnt.no.3 submits that Gujarat Water Supply and Sewage Board, a statutory Board has not taken any policy decision to grant such benefits available to skilled workmen to the beneficiaries of Govt. Resolution dated 17.10.88 who are as such originally employed as unskilled daily wager and granted benefits accordingly and are still working as unskilled workmen. It is submitted that even it is an admitted position the petitioners are working as unskilled workmen but only on the basis of govt. policy referred to hereinabove are seeking the benefits of pay scale available to skilled workmen i.e. 950-1500.

5. The respnt.no.3 submits that in past some of such unskilled workmen were inadvertently granted benefits of pay scale of Rs.950-1500 available to skilled workmen in absence of policy at the Division or SubDivision level but since it came to the notice of Head Office at Gandhinagar, a communication dated 5.6.15 addressed to all the Chief Engineers of all five Zones of Gujarat Water Supply and Sewage Board instructing that such benefits should not be granted and a copy thereof is annexed as ANNEXURE-E. It is submitted that such benefits are subject to the policy decision of Gujarat Water Supply and Sewage Board.

C/SCA/14097/2018 CAV ORDER DATED: 09/09/2022

6. The respnt.no.3 submits that the issue in question with regard to grant of such benefits to SSC pass daily wagers is yet not finalized at the end of State Govt. It is submitted that a proposal is addressed to the Narmada Water Resources and Water Supply and Kalpsar Dept. of the Govt. of Gujarat on 9.1.14 and subsequently a further correspondence is entered in to between the Govt. of Gujarat and respnt. Board but appropriate decision is yet to be taken."

[9] Thus, a clear stand has been taken by the appellants - Board before the learned Single Judge since the same is also deduced in writing in affidavit-in-reply referred to above.

[10] Page 94 of present compilation requires that a conscious decision is to be taken not to apply this pay scale of Rs.950/- and with immediate effect, the Member Secretary of the Board has informed all divisions vide communication dated 05.06.2015 and as such there was a clear resistance by the appellant - Board in respect of implementation of pay scale of Rs.950/-

[11] Yet another assertion in clear form is that in some division, through inadvertence, in past, some unskilled workmen have been inadvertently granted the pay scale of Rs.950-1500/- which is otherwise not amenable and taking note of such situation, the recovery steps have also been initiated by the Board by withdrawing the said benefit. This aspect was already referred to in paragraph No.5 of earlier affidavit filed by the Board before the learned Single Judge, but in more clarificatory terms on oath, the Board has stated before us in the form of affidavit-in-rejoinder reflecting on page 125. In the said affidavit-in-rejoinder, in paragraph 1 in the later part, it is pointed out that some mistake has been crept in, in extending the pay scale of Rs.950-1500/-, but then administrative instructions have been issued on 29.08.1991 and on 01.05.1991, a copy whereof is also attached along with the said affidavit-in-rejoinder. To be more precise, we deem it proper to reproduce the said relevant portion which reflects the stand of the Board, as contained in paragraph 1: "It is categorically stated that the subsequent Government Resolution dated 01.05.1991 issued by Government of Gujarat through its Roads & Building Department granting benefits of the pay scale meant for Class-III i.e. Rs.950-1500/- is not adopted by the Board and therefore, the beneficiaries of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 are not entitled to

C/SCA/14097/2018 CAV ORDER DATED: 09/09/2022

the benefits of Government Resolution dated 01.05.1991. The Appellant No.1 submits that as such no discriminatory treatment is given to the Respondent or similarly situated beneficiaries of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 due to non-grant of benefits of Government Resolution dated 01.05.1991. It is submitted that through inadvertence in all 476 beneficiaries of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 are granted benefits of pay scale of Rs.950- 1500/- at divisional or sub-divisional level though the policy decision is not taken by the Board in that regard. It is submitted that as on today 474 such beneficiaries of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 are not granted pay scale of Rs.950-1,500/-. It is submitted that as soon as the said error committed at grass root level came to notice of Head Office, the instructions are issued to the effect that no such benefits be granted. It is submitted that as such on 29 th August, 1991, administrative instructions were issued to all the Chief Engineers and other Engineers that the benefits of Government Resolution dated 01.05.1991 is not to be granted to the daily wagers of Gujarat Water Supply & Sewerage Board."

[12] Yet another stand which is also worth to be taken note of is that undisputedly attempts were made to make a recovery of withdrawing pay scale of Rs.950-1500/- but then the said withdrawal is under challenge before this Court in the form of Special Civil Application No.2055 of 2007 and Special Civil Application No.22296 of 2006 which are yet pending before the Court. So it is clearly visible from the stand of the appellant - Board that unlike adoption of 17.10.1988 resolution, the subsequent resolutions are not adopted by the appellant - Board and instead steps have been taken to withdraw the benefits by effecting recovery. Since the subject matter of recovery is pending before this Court, we are not inclined to offer any comment, but taking note of such stand of the appellant - Board, we have seen that this aspect appears to have not been visible from the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

[13] Apart from that, in past, it seems that this issue was very much agitated somewhere in the year 2004 wherein while dealing with almost similar issue in Special Civil Application No.18158 of 2003 with Special Civil Application Nos.759 to 772 of 2004, the learned Single Judge in his order dated 24.02.2004 left the said issue open to the authority for taking appropriate decision. The relevant observation contained in the said judgment is reproduced hereinafter reflecting in paragraph No.8. Of course, the petitions came to be disposed

C/SCA/14097/2018 CAV ORDER DATED: 09/09/2022

of by observing principles of natural justice, but the aforesaid conclusion since cannot be unnoticed, we have reproduced the same hereinafter:

"8. In view of the aforesaid, I find that the other aspects regarding granting of pay scale of Rs.950/- was by mistake or not, the applicability of Govt. Resolution, dated 17.10.1988 and 13.10.1991 and other aspects incidental thereto should be left open to the authority for appropriate decision, but the impugned decision can not be sustained on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice as the opportunity of hearing has not been given to the concerned petitioner before withdrawing the benefit of payscale."

[14] Simultaneously, yet another decision, which has been taken by the learned Single Judge on 17.03.2005 while deciding Special Civil Application No.15517 of 2004 with Special Civil Application Nos.15521 and 15527 of 2004 in which also these very contentions have been dealt with by the learned Single Judge and in no uncertain terms, it has been observed that automatic applicability of Government resolution is not possible to be accepted. The relevant observations contained in the said decision reflecting from page 140, we deem it proper to reproduce the same hereinafter: " For want of any material regarding the discrimination vis a vis employees in other districts of the Board, it is not possible for this Court to come to the conclusion that there has been discrimination meted out to the petitioners. It would, however, be open for the petitioners to point out with proper material that in other districts and other employees under identical situation, the Board employees are being paid higher wages and in such case it will be duty of the Board to examine this aspect of the matter. If the petitioners make a representation in this regard the same shall be considered in accordance with the rules. 6. The last contention of the counsel for the petitioners that under section 68 of the Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board Act, 1978 the Board is bound by the directions of the policy decision issued by the Government and that therefore all Government circulars prescribing higher pay scale should also be followed by the Board. I am afraid, this submission cannot be accepted. Section 68 provides that the Board will follow the directives of the Government from time to time in policy decision in discharge of its duties. Of course, the Board is required to follow the Government directives with respect to policy decision if so issued. However, I do not find any directive of the Government to the Board to prescribe a

C/SCA/14097/2018 CAV ORDER DATED: 09/09/2022

particular pay scale which would govern the situation of the present petitioners and in absence of such directive, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Board ought to have adopted the higher pay scale as prescribed by the Government for its employees. 7. In the result, subject to the above observations, the petitions are rejected. Notice discharged with no order as to costs." By observing the aforesaid conclusion, the petition came to be rejected.

[15] It further appears from the record that this very decision was assailed by the petitioner of that petition by way of preferring Letters Patent Appeal (Stump) No.681 of 2005 in which on 02.08.2005, the Division Bench was since not possibly found in favour of the appellants, the said Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty. This indicates that stand of the Board is quite reasonably accepted and concluded by a decision taken in past.

[16] This observation contained in the aforesaid decision is dismantling the reason which has been assigned by the learned Single Judge that once the main resolution dated 17.10.1988 is accepted by the Board, the incidental resolution and attendant resolution would have to be applied automatically. Hence, we reasonably find that the stand of Board is justified and there appears to an error committed by the learned Single Judge.

[17] Apart from that, in addition to the aforesaid circumstance prevailing on record, yet another material circumstance which is not possible to be unnoticed by us is that before the learned Single Judge, the Board has pointed out in paragraph 6 in affidavit-in-reply on page 79 that the correspondence between the Government and the Board is awaiting a final decision. Now, Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for the appellants - Board has submitted that pending the aforesaid proceedings even this very Government authority has clearly opined in a communication dated 09.09.2019 reflecting on page Nos. 134 and 135 of appeal compilation that the benefit of pay scale of Rs.950/- has been erroneously extended to some 378 daily rated employees and for correcting the same, appropriate steps are suggested and in clear terms, it has been opined by the State authority that there is no question of extending the pay scale of Rs.950/- to other 283 daily rated employees. Now, this decision is taken in the month of September 2019 well before the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, unless and until, the said decision is questioned by either the

C/SCA/14097/2018 CAV ORDER DATED: 09/09/2022

petitioner or any other employee, it is always open for the Board to take a corrective measure.

[18] From the overall circumstances, which are visible from the record, we see that there is a discretion left with the Board either to apply the pay scale or not depending upon its own policy and the said view has been confirmed in the earlier proceedings as stated above and we see that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in just observing that when parent policy in the form of Government resolution dated 17.10.1988 is adopted, the other attendant resolutions are to be applied automatically which reason sounds an irregularity. Additionally, while going through the decision delivered by the learned Single Judge much emphasis appears to have been given on the stand of original petitioner that other similarly situated nine employees have been extended such benefits. But we have seen from the record that by way of corrective measure, the Board has initiated proceedings of withdrawal of such pay scale and steps have been effectively taken and as such, we see no reason to allow the original petitioner to claim the said benefit by way of negative equality as has been pointed out earlier even now the Government has also in clear terms taken a decision not to extend such benefit and if extended take corrective measure, we see no reason to allow the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge to stand in the eye of law. The attending circumstance, reflecting from the record, is giving an impression in clear terms that there shall be no automatic application of the other subsequent resolutions issued for various departments in the government unless specifically applied by mandate and by the Board, being a statutory body, is free to take its own decision in respect of this particular pay scale.

[19] This, we have observed in the context of the present controversy only and in peculiar background of present facts and circumstances and looking to past orders as well. Resultantly, the challenge in the simpliciter form and the claim made by the original petitioner is not possible to be accepted.

[20] Normally, the view taken by the learned Single Judge is not to be interfered with but here is the case in which the conclusion which is arrived at is in conflict with the record and the proposition which has been pointed out before us in past decisions delivered by the learned Single Judge in respect of proceedings initiated against the very appellants - Board and in one case, it has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court. So overall material on record is indicating that case

C/SCA/14097/2018 CAV ORDER DATED: 09/09/2022

is strongly made out by the appellants - Board which constrained us to grant the relief as prayed for in the appeal

[21] In view of aforesaid circumstances, we are of the clear opinion that concept of negative equality is not recognized in the law, but at the same time, once mistake is committed, the same cannot be allowed to be perpetuated and the said view is well recognized by the decision cited before us by the learned advocate for the appellant - Board and since we are not in conflict with the observations, we deem it proper not to incorporate the observation of the said decisions just to avoid unnecessary burden of the present order and as such in close conformity with the said proposition of law laid down by the decision delivered by the Apex Court, we see that this is a fit case in which the appeal of the appellant - Board is allowed and the original petitioner's stand is not possible to be accepted unless and until there is a specific challenge to the decision of the Board. We also do not recognize this omnibus prayer which is made in the petition. Resultantly, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is hereby quashed and set aside. The appeal stands allowed.

[22] Since the appeal is allowed, connected Civil Application also stands disposed of."

8. The employee carried the matter in Appeal before the

Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.

7578 of 2021 considered the scheme as set out in the

judgment and held as under:

"4.1 As per scheme contained in Resolution dated 17.10.1988 all the daily wage workers were not entitled for regularization or permanency in the services. As per the said Resolution the daily wagers are entitled to the following benefits:

"(i) They are entitled to daily wages as per the prevailing Daily Wages. If there is presence of more than 240 days in first year, daily wagers are eligible for paid Sunday, medical allowance and national festival holidays.

(ii) Daily wagers and semi-skilled workers who has service of more than five years and less than 10 years are entitled for

C/SCA/14097/2018 CAV ORDER DATED: 09/09/2022

fixed monthly salary along with dearness allowance as per prevailing standard, for his working days. Such daily wagers will get two optional leave in addition to 14 misc. leave, Sunday leave and national festival holidays. Such daily wagers will also be eligible for getting medical allowance and deduction of provident fund.

(iii) Daily wagers and semi-skilled workers who has service of more than ten years but less than 15 years are entitled to get minimum pay scale at par with skilled worker along with dearness allowance as per prevailing standard, for his working days. Moreover, such daily wagers will get two optional leave in addition to 14 misc. 4 leave, Sunday leave and national festival holidays. He/she will be eligible for getting medical allowance and deduction of provident fund.

(iv) Daily wagers and semi-skilled workers who has service of more than 15 years will be considered as permanent worker and such semi-skilled workers will get current pay scale of skilled worker along with dearness allowance, local city allowance and house rent allowance. They will get benefit as per the prevailing rules of gratuity, retired salary, general provident fund. Moreover, they will get two optional leave in addition to 14 misc. leave, 30 days earned leave, 20 days half pay leave, Sunday leave and national festival holidays. The daily wage workers and semi-skilled who have completed more than 15 years of their service will get one increment, two increments for 20 years service and three increments for 25 years in the current pay scale of skilled workers and their salary will be fixed accordingly."

4.2 That the Respondent - Board adopted the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 by way of communication dated 08.06.1989. That the respective original petitioners are working as daily rated employees with the Board. That on adoption of GR dated 17.10.1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'parent Resolution') by the Respondent - Board all the daily rated employees working with the Board including the original petitioners were granted the benefit of the pay scales of Rs.750 and other benefits upon their completion of 5 years services. 5

4.3 That thereafter vide Resolution dated 01.05.1991, the State Government modified the Resolution dated 17.10.1988. Under the modified GR dated 01.05.1991 it provided that all departments would assign administrative work of clerical cadre Class - III to those SCC pass daily wagers who have

C/SCA/14097/2018 CAV ORDER DATED: 09/09/2022

completed 7 years and it further provided that such daily wager should be paid pay scale of Rs.950- 1500 from the date of assignment of duty. Another Resolution dated 15.02.1992 was issued wherein it was stated that pay of Rs.950 would be granted in the pay scale of Rs.950-1500 w.e.f. 01.05.1991 to all SSC pass daily wagers who have completed 7 years of service. As observed hereinabove the Respondent - Board granted benefits under the parent Resolution to all the writ petitioners and the daily rated employees working with the Board upon their completion of five years and placed them at the basic pay of Rs.2550. That the Respondent - Board also granted benefits under the parent Resolution to all daily rated employees working with the Board including the original writ petitioners upon their completion of 10 years and placed them in the pay scale of Rs.2550-55-2600-60-3200.

4.4 It appears that some of the zonal offices of the Board erroneously and inadvertently extended the benefit of the modified 6 Resolutions dated 01.05.1991 and 15.02.1992 to unskilled daily wagers. That it came to notice of the Head Office of the Respondent - Board that in absence of any policy decision to adopt the Resolutions dated 01.05.1991 and 15.02.1992, inadvertently benefit of pay scale of Rs.950-1500 has been granted to certain daily wagers and therefore vide instructions dated 05.06.2015, it was instructed that such benefits should not be granted. In fact, the Respondent - Board withdrew the benefit of pay scale of Rs.950-1500 granted inadvertently applying the Resolutions dated 01.05.1991 & 15.02.1992 and even started recovery, which is the subject matter before the High Court in some other proceedings.

4.5 It appears that the respective original writ petitioners sent various representations to the Board to place them in the pay scale of Rs.950-1500 as per the Resolutions dated 01.05.1991 & 15.02.1992 and further revision of pay to the extent of Rs.3050-4590. That thereafter the original writ petitioners approached the High Court by way of SCA No.16470 of 2018 to grant them the benefit of pay scale under the Government Resolutions dated 01.05.1991 and 15.02.1992 and to put them in the pay scale of Rs.950-1500. The said writ petition was opposed by the Board by filing a detailed reply. It was 7 the specific case on behalf of the Board that the modified Government Resolutions dated 01.05.1991 and 15.02.1992 are never adopted by the Board like the parent Resolution dated 17.10.1988. It was also the case on behalf of the Board that in some zonal offices the benefit of Resolutions dated

C/SCA/14097/2018 CAV ORDER DATED: 09/09/2022

01.05.1991 and 15.02.1992 were inadvertently given which have been withdrawn. It was the specific case on behalf of the Board that unless the Board specifically adopts the Government Resolutions dated 01.05.1991 and 15.02.1992, the original writ petitioners and other daily rated employees are not entitled to the benefit under the said Resolutions. It was also submitted that there is no automatic adoption of the subsequent resolutions. It was also the case that as the others were given the benefit of the Government Resolutions dated 01.05.1991 and 15.02.1992 inadvertently and by mistake and in fact the same are sought to be withdrawn/withdrawn, the writ petitioners cannot claim the parity. That by judgment and order dated 15.10.2019, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the Board to grant the benefits of pay scale of Rs.950-1500 to the original writ petitioners - daily rated employees with all consequential benefits upon completion of 10 years of service and revised their pay scales 8 as per 5th, 6th and 7th Pay Commission scales on such basis. The learned Single Judge also directed to pay the arears.

5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, the Board preferred the Letters Patent Appeal 16470 of 2018 before the Division Bench of the High Court. By the impugned judgment and order the Division Bench of the High Court has allowed the Letters Patent Appeal and quashed and set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge by holding that at the subsequent modified Government Resolutions dated 01.05.1991 and 15.02.1992 are not adopted by the Board, the daily rated employees of the Board are not entitled to any benefit flowing from modified Government Resolutions dated 01.05.1991 and 15.02.1992 which as such are not adopted by the Board.

6. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugnment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court holding that the original writ petitioners are not entitled to pay scale of Rs.950-1500 and the benefits flowing from the modified Government Resolutions dated 01.05.1991 and 15.02.1992, the original writ petitioners - daily 9 rated employees of the Respondent - Board have preferred the present appeals.

7. Shri Sanjay Parikh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the original writ petitioners has vehemently submitted that as such the Division Bench of the High Court

C/SCA/14097/2018 CAV ORDER DATED: 09/09/2022

has erred in quashing and setting aside the well-reasoned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge.

7.1 It is submitted that the learned Single Judge considered every aspect of the matter and considering the material on record has rightly held that the original writ petitioners are entitled to the benefit flowing from the Government Resolutions dated 01.05.1991 and 15.02.1992.

7.2 It is further submitted by Shri Parikh, learned Senior Counsel that as such the Respondent - Board passed a Resolution dated 06.08.1990 that till the Board frames its own Rules and Regulations, Board shall follow the Rules, Regulations, Circulars, Policies, Instructions and all schemes of the State Government. It is submitted that till date no Rules and Regulations are framed by the Board. It is submitted that therefore the Board is bound to follow and/or act upon its own Board Resolution dated 06.08.1990. 10

7.3 It is further submitted that even otherwise once the parent Resolution dated 17.10.1988 came to be adopted by the Board, all successive amended resolutions shall be applicable and shall have to be implemented by the Board.

7.4 It is further submitted that the Board being a statutory body, has to adopt all subsequent policy decisions/resolutions in the same manner in which the parent Resolution was adopted.

7.5 It is further submitted by Shri Parikh, learned Senior Counsel for the original writ petitioners that in fact there are several employees who have been granted such benefits under the Government Resolutions dated 01.05.1991 and 15.02.1992 and only few of the daily rated employees like the original writ petitioners are denied the benefit under the GRs of 1991 and 1992. It is submitted therefore as rightly observed and held by learned Single Judge the action of the Respondent

- Board in denying the benefit of Government Resolutions dated 01.05.1991 and 15.02.1992 to some of the daily wage employees would be discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that out of total 3348 daily rated employees, only 474 daily rated employees like the original writ petitioners are denied the benefits of 1991 and 1992 Resolutions. 11

7.6 It is further submitted by Shri Parikh, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that as such earlier the service of

C/SCA/14097/2018 CAV ORDER DATED: 09/09/2022

water supply and sewerage was under the control of Government of Gujarat and only on formation of the Board under the Act such activity was transferred to the Board. It is submitted that therefore, the Board is undertaking the activities which earlier the Government was performing. It is submitted that therefore when the Board is the creation of the statute and is undertaking the activities which earlier were carried out by the State Government and the same is funded by the State Government, the daily rated employees of the Board like the original writ petitioners are entitled to the same benefits which are available to the daily rated employees of the other departments of the State Government. Heavy reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat and Others versus PWD Employees Union and others, (2013) 12 SCC 417.

8. Making above submissions and relying upon the above decision, it is prayed to allow the present appeals and quash and set aside the impugned judgment and orders passed by the Division Bench and restore the judgment and order passed by the learned 12 Single Judge allowing the benefits flowing from 1991 and 1992 Resolutions.

9. Present appeals are vehemently opposed by Ms. Aastha Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent

- Board.

9.1 It is vehemently submitted by Ms. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent - Board that in the facts and circumstances of the case the Division Bench of the High Court has not committed any error in allowing the appeals preferred by the Respondent - Board and quashed and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

9.2 It is submitted that as such the original writ petitioners - daily rated employees working with the Respondent - Board have been granted the benefit under the parent Resolution dated 17.10.1988. It is submitted that such benefits have been granted as the Board specifically adopted the parent Resolution dated 17.10.1988. It is submitted that however the subsequent modified Resolutions of 1991 and 1992 have never been adopted by the Board. It is submitted that therefore the daily rated employees working with the Respondent - Board like the original writ petitioners are not entitled to any benefit 13 flowing from the Resolutions of 1991 and 1992. It is submitted that therefore the Division Bench of the High Court has rightly held that as the subsequent

C/SCA/14097/2018 CAV ORDER DATED: 09/09/2022

resolutions of 1991 and 1992 are not adopted by the Respondent - Board, the original writ petitioners - daily rated employees of the Respondent - Board are not entitled to any benefit under the Resolutions of 1991 and 1992.

9.3 Ms. Mehta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent - Board has further submitted that as such and despite the fact that the Resolutions of 1991 and 1992 were never adopted by the Board, in some of the zonal offices inadvertently and mistakenly the benefits under the Resolutions of 1991 and 1992 were given. It is submitted that immediately when the Head Office came to know, instructions were issued to all the zonal offices to stop granting the benefit under the Resolutions of 1991 and 1992 and to recover the amount mistakenly given. It is submitted that the subsequent decision in the year 2015 withdrawing the benefit under the Resolutions of 1991 and 1992 which are given mistakenly and inadvertently is never challenged by the original writ petitioners. It is submitted that therefore the decision to withdraw the benefit flowing from the Resolutions of 1991 and 1992 stands. 14

9.4 It is submitted that the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions and directed the Respondent - Board to grant the benefits flowing from the Resolutions of 1991 and 1992 solely and mainly on the ground of discrimination and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India by observing that the other daily rated employees working with the Respondent - Board are granted the benefit under the Resolutions of 1991 and 1992 and therefore not to pay similar benefits to the original writ petitioners is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that however the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that as such the benefits which were given to the other employees have been withdrawn and even the recovery is also sought. It is submitted that thereafter it cannot be said that the action of the Respondent - Board in not granting the benefit under the Resolutions of 1991 and 1992 can be said to be discriminatory and/or in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

9.5 Ms. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent

- Board has requested to consider the following chronological list of dates and events: S.No Date Particulars 15 1. 17.10.1988 Govt. of Gujarat passed a resolution dated 17.10.1988 wherein the Govt decided to give certain benefits to skilled daily wager workmen depending upon the period of service undergone, i.e. less than 5, 5 or more or 10 years. This

C/SCA/14097/2018 CAV ORDER DATED: 09/09/2022

is referred to as the Parent Resolution/policy in the SLP. 2. 08.06.1989 The Respondent Board adopted the abovereferred Resolution by way communication dated 08.06.1989. 3. 01.05.1991 Resolution in question Vide the resolution, certain modification was carried out in the parent resolution of 1988. The resolution prescribes that all departments would assign administrative work of clerical cadre ClassIII to those SSC pass daily wagers who have completed 07 years. It was further decided that such daily wager should be paid pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 from the date of assignment of duty. 4. 29.08.1991 Administrative instructions were issued to all Chief Engineers of Zonal offices that benefit pursuant to Govt. resolution of 1991 are not to be granted to the daily rated employees of the Board. 5. 15.02.1992 Another resolution was issued wherein it was stated that pay of Rs. 950 would be granted in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 w.e.f 01.05.1991 to all SSC pass daily wagers who have completed 7 years service. 6. 13.08.2003 Respondent granted benefits under the 1988 (Parent resolution) to the Petitioner upon his completion of 5 years and placed him at the basic pay of Rs. 2550/-. 16 7. 03.08.2004 Respondent granted benefits under the 1988 (Parent resolution) to the Petitioner upon his completion of 10 years and placed him pay scale of Rs. 2550-55-2600-60-3200.

8. 30.03.2015 /10.04.2015 Respondent Board on account of inadvertence, extended the benefit of 01.05.1991 and 15.02.1992 benefits to unskilled daily wager in certain zonal offices. 9. 05.06.2015 It came to the notice of the Head Office of the Respondent Board that in absence of any policy decision to adopt 01.05.1991 & 15.02.1992, inadvertently benefit of pay scale of 950-1500 was granted to certain daily wagers, and vide instructions dated 05.06.2015 it was instructed that such benefits should not be granted. 10. 2015- 2018 Petitioner sent various Representations to the Respondent Board to consider the application of 1991 and 1992 resolutions. 11. 2018 Petitioner filed SCA No. 16470 of 2018 before the High Court claiming parity with certain other employees who had been granted benefits under 1991 and 1992 resolutions. 17 12. 23.07.2019 Respondent Board filed its Affidavit-in-Reply raising the following contentions: 1. Policies of Govt are not automatically applicable and binding on the Respondent. 2. The Board has not taken any decision to grant benefits available to skilled workmen under 1991 and 1992 notifications and extend the same to unskilled workmen who were given benefits of 1988 resolution. 3. Vide communication 05.06.2015, the Board instructed all Chief Engineers of Zones to not grant any benefits. 4. Despite proposal sent by the Board to the Govt for granting such

C/SCA/14097/2018 CAV ORDER DATED: 09/09/2022

benefits to eligible unskilled daily wagers, the Govt has not taken any decision. 13. 07.09.2019 Petitioner filed Affidavit-in- Rejoinder. 14. 09.09.2019 Govt Department concerned turned down the request for application of benefits under 1991 resolution to daily rated workmen of the Board. 9.6 It is submitted that as the Division Bench of the High Court has rightly appreciated the fact and has rightly held that the original writ petitioners and daily rated employees working with the Respondent - Board are not entitled to the benefits flowing from the Government Resolutions of 1991 and 1992. 18 9.7 It is submitted that even subsequently the Government has turned down the request for application of benefits under 1991 Resolution.

9.8 It is submitted that as in some of the zonal offices though not entitled, the daily rated employees were granted the benefits under the Resolutions of 1991 and 1992 inadvertently and mistakenly, the same came to be withdrawn and even recovery is sought. Thereafter there is no question of granting any benefit to the remaining daily rated employees. It is submitted that even otherwise the original writ petitioners have to establish their right to get the benefit under the Government Resolutions of 1991 and 1992 independently. It is submitted that concept of equality cannot be allowed in the present case to perpetuate one mistake for other daily wagers. Reliance is placed in the decision of this Court in the case of State of U.P. & Others versus Rajkumar Sharma & Others, (2006) 3 SCC 330 (para 15); State of West Bengal & Others versus Debasish Mukherjee & Others, (2011) 14 SCC 187 and P. Singaravelan & Others versus District Collector, Tiruppur and DT and Others, (2020) 3 SCC 133. 19

9.9 It is further submitted by Ms. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent - Board that there cannot be any automatic application of subsequent resolutions by the Board. It is submitted that the Respondent - Board is an autonomous and statutory body and free to take its own decision in regard to pay scales. It is submitted that being the daily rated employees of the Respondent - Board, they are not entitled to the benefits which are given to the State Government employees automatically unless it is adopted by the Board.

9.10 It is submitted that even otherwise as held by this Court in a catena of decisions, issues of revision of pay scales and determination of pay scales/post should be dealt with by the employer, which depend upon the employers' financial

C/SCA/14097/2018 CAV ORDER DATED: 09/09/2022

capacity. Reliance is placed on the decisions of this Court in the case of Secretary, Finance Department and Others versus West Bengal Registration Service Association & Others, 1993 Supp (1) SCC 153; State of Bihar and Others versus Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee, Munger and Others, (2019) 18 SCC 301 and Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited and 20 Another versus Balbir Kumar Walia and Others, (2021) 8 SCC 784.

9.11 It is further submitted that in the present case if the Board is directed to grant the benefit flowing from Government Resolutions of 1991 and 1992 to the daily rated employees working with the Respondent - Board in that case it would have a cascading effect and financial burden upon the Respondent - Board. It is submitted that there shall be additional financial liability on the Board. It is submitted that there are 3348 daily wager employees. Out of 3348 daily wage employees, 474 are not granted the benefits of the 1991 and 1992 Resolutions. It is submitted that additional financial liability per daily wager would be Rs.5 lakhs and therefore considering that 474 employees are not granted, multiplying Rs.5 lakhs into 474 employees, the overall financial liability of the Board comes to Rs.23.7 crores. It is submitted that annually, the additional burden on the Respondent - Board even with respect to the remaining 474 daily rated employees like the original writ petitioners would be Rs.2 crores.

10. Making above submissions it is prayed to dismiss the present appeals. 21

11. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length.

12. The short question which is posed for consideration before this Court is whether the original writ petitioners - daily rated employees working with the Respondent - Board are entitled to the benefits flowing from subsequent Resolutions dated 01.05.1991 and 15.02.1992? Another question which is posed for consideration before this Court is whether the principle of negative equality shall be applicable in a case where the other employees were wrongly granted the benefits and/or the employees who are claiming the parity shall have to establish their rights independently to get the particular benefits?

13. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and considering the list of dates and events reproduced hereinabove it can be seen that the writ

C/SCA/14097/2018 CAV ORDER DATED: 09/09/2022

petitioners are working as daily rated employees with the Respondent - Board. The State of Gujarat passed a resolution dated 17.10.1988 wherein the Government decided to grant certain benefits to skilled daily wager workmen. The Respondent - Board which is an autonomous body constituted under the Act adopted the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and granted the 22 benefits flowing from the GR dated 17.10.1988 which is the parent Resolution. It is not in dispute that the respective original writ petitioners - daily rated employees are granted the benefits flowing from the parent Resolution dated 17.10.1988.

13.1 However, subsequently the Government issued Resolutions dated 01.05.1991 and 15.02.1992 by which certain modifications were carried out in the parent Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and it was provided that such daily wagers who are SSC passed and have completed 7 years, the Department would assign administrative work of clerical cadre Class III and they shall be paid pay scale of Rs.950- 1500 from the date of assignment of duty. The original writ petitioners - daily rated employees are claiming the benefit flowing from the aforesaid subsequent Government Resolutions dated 01.05.1991 and 15.02.1992 mainly on the ground that other similar daily rated employees have been granted the benefit under the aforesaid Government Resolutions of 1991 and 1992 and therefore not extending such benefits to other daily rated employees - other writ petitioners which is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 23

13.2 However, it is required to be noted that as such the Board never adopted the subsequent Resolutions dated 01.05.1991 and 15.02.1992. It is required to be noted that the parent Resolution dated 17.10.1988 was specifically approved by the Board vide communication dated 08.06.1989. On the contrary the administrative instructions vide communication dated 29.08.1991 were issued to all the Chief Engineers of zonal offices that benefits pursuant to Government Resolution of 1991 are not to be granted to the daily rated employees of the Board. It is to be noted that right from adopting the parent Resolution dated 17.10.1988, the Respondent - Board granted benefits under the parent Resolution to all the original writ petitioners - daily rated employees upon their completion of 5 years and of 10 years. Therefore, as such the Board which is an autonomous and statutory body created under the Act never adopted the Government Resolutions dated 01.05.1991 and 15.02.1992 and unless the said Resolutions are adopted

C/SCA/14097/2018 CAV ORDER DATED: 09/09/2022

by the Respondent - Board, the daily rated employees working with the Respondent - Board shall not be entitled to the benefits flowing from the subsequent resolutions. There shall not be automatic adoption and/or applicability of the subsequent resolutions. Under the circumstances 24 as rightly held by the Division Bench, the daily rated employees of the Respondent - Board cannot claim the benefits from the Resolutions of 1991 and 1992 as a matter of right. As rightly observed and held they do no have any right to get the benefits flowing from the aforesaid Resolutions of 01.05.1991 and 15.02.1992 till specifically adopted by the Respondent - Board like adoption of the parent Resolution dated 17.10.1988.

13.3 Even being the daily rated employees working with the Respondent - Board they cannot claim the parity with the employees of the State Government. The Respondent - Board is an autonomous and statutory body created under the Act. It is ultimately for the Respondent - Board to take a conscious decision which can be termed as a policy decision on the pay scales to be adopted and/or certain benefits which would have financial implications. Everything depends upon its economic viability or the financial capacity. As per the settled proposition of law the economic viability or the financial capacity of the employer is an important factor while fixing the wage structure, otherwise the unit itself may not be able to function and may have to close down inevitably and have disastrous consequences for the employees themselves. As per the settled 25 proposition of law the employees cannot legitimately claim that their pay-scales should necessarily be revised and/or they must be granted certain additional benefits/benefits.

13.4 As per the settled proposition of law equation of posts and salary is a complex matter which should be left to the expert body and undertakings and the court cannot interfere lightly. Granting of pay parity by the court may result in a cascading effect having adverse consequences. There are limitations or qualifications to the applicability of the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work'.

13.5 Being daily rated employees of the Respondent - Board, they cannot claim as of right similar treatment as Government employees. The Respondent - Board is an independent entity and it might have its own financial capacity and therefore its employees cannot claim parity with the employees of the State Government.

C/SCA/14097/2018 CAV ORDER DATED: 09/09/2022

13.6 The State Government and the autonomous Board/bodies cannot be put at par. The Board has to depend upon their own financial resources. In the recent decision in the case of Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited and Another (Supra) it is observed in paragraph 32 as under:

"32. The Central or State Government is empowered to levy taxes to meet out the expenses of the State. It is always a conscious decision of the Government as to how much taxes have to be levied so as to not cause excessive burden on the citizens. But the Boards and Corporations have to depend on either their own resources or seek grant from the Central/ State Government, as the case may be, for their expenditures. Therefore, the grant of benefits of higher pay scale to the Central/State Government employees stand on different footing than grant of pay scale by an instrumentality of the State." Therefore, the daily rated employees of the Board cannot as a matter of right claim the parity of pay scales with the Government employees.

13.7 In the present case a conscious decision has been taken by the Board not to adopt the Government Resolutions dated 01.05.1991 and 15.02.1992. Even the State Government has refused to extend the benefits under the Government Resolutions of 1991 and 1992. The Board has taken a conscious decision considering the additional financial burden on the Board if the benefits under the Government Resolutions of 1991 and 1992 are allowed.

14. At the cost of repetition, it is observed that unless and until the Board has specifically adopted the Government Resolutions of 1991 27 and 1992 like adopting the parent Resolution dated 17.10.1988, the daily rated employees/employees of the Respondent - Board shall not be entitled to any benefit flowing from the Resolutions of 1991 and 1992. Therefore, the learned Single Judge erred in directing the Board to grant the benefits flowing from the Government Resolutions dated 01.05.1991 and 15.02.1992 which is rightly set aside by the Division Bench of the High Court.

15. So far as the submission on behalf of the original writ petitioners which was accepted by the learned Single Judge

C/SCA/14097/2018 CAV ORDER DATED: 09/09/2022

that as number of other daily rated employees of the Board were granted the benefits flowing from the Resolutions of 1991 and 1992, not paying similar benefits to the remaining daily rated employees would be discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India is concerned, it is required to be noted that as such right from the very beginning it was the case on behalf of the Respondent - Board that the benefits under the Resolutions of 1991 and 1992 were inadvertently and mistakenly given by some of the zonal offices, which subsequently came to be withdrawn and even the recovery is also sought. As observed and held hereinabove the original writ petitioners - daily rated employees of the Board are not entitled to the 28 benefits flowing from the Government Resolutions of 1991 and 1992. Therefore, they cannot invoke Article 14 of the Constitution to claim benefit on the ground of parity if they otherwise are not entitled to such benefit. As per the settled proposition of law Article 14 of the Constitution embodies concept of positive equality alone and not negative equality. It cannot be relied upon to perpetuate illegality and irregularity.

15.1 As held by this Court in the case of Rajkumar Sharma (Supra) in a case of appointments or pay-scales, Article 14 of the Constitution does not envisage negative equality and if State has committed the mistake, it cannot be forced to perpetuate the same mistake.

15.2 In the case of Debasish Mukherjee (Supra) while dealing with the concept of equality it is observed in paragraph 26 as under:

"26. It is now well settled that guarantee of equality before law is a positive concept and cannot be enforced in a negative manner. If an illegality or an irregularity has been committed in favour of any individual or group of individuals, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of Courts and Tribunals to require the state to commit the same irregularity or illegality in their favour on the reasoning that they have been denied the benefits which have been illegally or arbitrarily extended to others. [See : Gursharan Singh vs. New Delhi Municipal Administration - 1996 (2) SCC 459, Union of India vs. Kirloskar Pneumatics Ltd. - 1996 (4) SCC 433, Union of India vs. International Trading 29 Co. - 2003 (5) SCC 437, and State of Bihar vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh - 2000 (9) SCC 94.]"

C/SCA/14097/2018 CAV ORDER DATED: 09/09/2022

16. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand and as observed hereinabove the daily rated employees of the Board cannot claim as a matter of right the benefits flowing from the Government Resolutions dated 01.05.1991 and 15.02.1992 and as such they are not entitled to the benefits flowing from the said Resolutions of 1991 and 1992 automatically and considering the fact that even subsequently the mistake committed by other zonal offices have been corrected and the benefits mistakenly and/or inadvertently have been withdrawn and even the recovery sought, the learned Single Judge committed grave error in holding that the action of the Respondent - Board in not granting benefit flowing from the Government Resolution of 1991 and 1992 is discriminately and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The same is rightly corrected by the Division Bench of the High Court and the Division Bench of the High Court has rightly set aside the order passed by the Single judge. 30

17. Now so far as the reliance placed upon by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original writ petitioners in the decision of this Court in PWD Employees Union (Supra) is concerned, the same shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand and/or the same shall not be of any assistance to the daily rated employees of the Respondent - Board. In the case before this Court the dispute was with respect to two different departments of the State Government. As observed hereinabove, the employees of the Government departments and the employees of the Board as such stand on different footings.

As observed hereinabove the employees of the Board cannot claim the parity with that of the Government employees.

18. In view of the above and for the reason stated above challenge to the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court fails. For the reason stated above, it cannot be said that the Division Bench of the High Court has committed grave error in allowing the Letters Patent Appeals and quashing and setting aside the judgment and orders passed by the High Court. It is held that the original writ petitioners - daily rated employees of the Respondent - 31 Board are not entitled to the benefits flowing from the Government Resolutions dated 01.05.1991 and 15.02.1992. However, they shall be continued to pay or grant the benefits flowing from the parent Resolution dated 17.10.1988 which is reported to be implemented and paid. Both these appeals

C/SCA/14097/2018 CAV ORDER DATED: 09/09/2022

deserve to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs."

9. What is therefore evident is that in context of the

prayers made in the petition and looking the Judgment

of the Supreme Court, the petitioner has prayed for

similar reliefs as prayed for by the petitioner of Special

Civil Application no.16470 of 2018 which were

considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil

Appeal No.7578 of 2021 in the case of Rajesh

Pravinchandra Rajyaguru versus Gujarat Water

Supply and Sewerage Board and, therefore, the

petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for and