Deputy Secretary vs Upendrasinh Ranjitsinh Jadeja
2023 Latest Caselaw 3298 Guj

     C/LPA/568/2023                                    ORDER DATED: 25/04/2023




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
               R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 568 of 2023
            In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6635 of 2022
                                  With
               CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2023
              In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 568 of 2023
==========================================================
                           DEPUTY SECRETARY
                                 Versus
                      UPENDRASINH RANJITSINH JADEJA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS SEJAL K MANDAVIA(436) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
 for the Respondent(s) No. 60
MR SHIVAM DIXIT, ADVANCE COPY SERVED TO GOVERNMENT
PLEADER/PP for the Respondent(s) No. 59
MS ASHLESHA M PATEL(6127) for the Respondent(s) No.
1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,2,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,3,30,31,32,
33,34,35,36,37,38,39,4,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,5,50,51,52,53,54,55,5
6,57,58,6,7,8,9
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
       and
       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                              Date : 25/04/2023

                        ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI)

1. This appeal is directed by the appellant- original Respondent Nos. 3 to 6, against the judgment and order, Dated: 20.10.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 6635 of 2022, whereby, the learned Single Judge allowed the petition filed by the original petitioner-private Opponent Nos. 1 to 58, herein.

2. Heard, learned Advocate, Ms. Mandavia, appearing

C/LPA/568/2023 ORDER DATED: 25/04/2023

for the appellants, learned Advocate, Ms. Patel, appearing for Opponent No. 1 to 58 and learned AGP, Mr. Dixit, for Respondent Nos. 59 and 60.

3. Learned Advocate, Ms. Mandavia, appearing for the appellants submitted that the original petitioners had filed the captioned petition with a prayer to grant them the benefit of the recommendations of the 7th Pay Commission and the Revised Pay-Scale with effect from 01.01.2016.

3.1 It was submitted that the learned Single Judge, vide impugned order dated 20.10.2022, allowed the said petition and thereby, directed the present appellants to extend the benefit of the 7th Pay Commission along with revised pay-scale to the original petitioners with effect from 01.01.2016. However, the learned Single Judge, in the impugned order, clarified that the arrears for the period between 01.01.2016 and 31.07.2017 shall be paid, as and when it is resolved between the Board and the State.

3.2 Learned Advocate, Ms. Mandavia, initially, tried to argue the matter on merits, however, later on, she fairly submitted that the issue involved in the present appeal is squarely covered by the order of the learned Single Judge, Dated: 26.10.2018, passed in Special Civil Application No. 3756 of 2018 and which, in turn, is confirmed by the Division Bench of

C/LPA/568/2023 ORDER DATED: 25/04/2023

this Court vide order, Dated: 24.01.2019, passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 231 of 2019.

4. Learned Advocate, Ms. Patel, appearing for the private opponents also submitted that the issue involved in this matter is covered by the orders passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of this Court.

5. Learned AGP, Mr. Dixit, appearing for Opponent Nos. 59 and 60 also conceded that the issue is covered by the aforesaid orders of this Court.

6. Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties and having perused the material on record, it emerges that the original petitioners had filed the captioned petition with a view to get the benefits of the recommendations of the 7th Pay Commission along with the revised pay-scale with effect from 01.01.2016.

6.1 Here, it may be noted that the original petitioners had, earlier, also filed Special Civil Application No. 11339 of 2017, with a prayer to grant the benefits of the recommendations of the 6 th Pay Commission, which came to be allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 12.04.2019. However, the original petitioners were not granted the benefits of the recommendations of the 7th Pay Commission and therefore, they filed the

C/LPA/568/2023 ORDER DATED: 25/04/2023

captioned petition.

6.1.1 It appears that in the meantime, similarly situated employees had preferred Special Civil Application No. 3756 of 2018, which came to be allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 26.10.2018. It, further, appears that when the order dated 26.10.2018 was challenged by way of Letters Patent Appeal No. 231 of 2019, the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.01.2019 confirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge, Dated: 26.10.2018. Thus, we are of the opinion that the issue involved in the present appeal is squarely covered by the orders passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of this Court. We, therefore, held that the learned Single Judge committed no error by passing the order dated 20.10.2022.

7. In the result, present appeal fails and the same is DISMISSED, accordingly.

(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J)

(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) UMESH/-