Maganlal Mohanlal Chauhan vs State Of Gujarat
2023 Latest Caselaw 1834 Guj

     C/SCA/21677/2019                             ORDER DATED: 22/02/2023




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21677 of 2019

==========================================================
                        MAGANLAL MOHANLAL CHAUHAN
                                   Versus
                             STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ANAND B GOGIA(5849) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR BB GOGIA(5851) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MS MUSKAN A GOGIA(6624) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR. RONAK RAVAL, LD. AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
LAW OFFICER BRANCH(420) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,4,5,6
MR HEMANG M SHAH(5399) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,4,5,6
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA

                              Date : 22/02/2023

                               ORAL ORDER

1. By way of this writ application, the writ applicants have prayed for the following reliefs;

"(A) Your Lordship may be pleased to admit and allow this petition;

(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to hold, declare and direct that, the Petitioners are entitled to get the revised pension as per the scale recommended in the Shetty Pay Commission report under the Government Resolution dated 13.04.2009 and 01.11.2000;

(C) Lordships be pleased to hold, declare and direct that the Petitioners irrespective of their date of retirement viz pre 01.04.2003 retirees, are entitled to revision in pension at par those petitioners who retired post 01.04.2003 along with arrears etc. and the respondents may not cause discrimination between pre 01.04.2003 or post retirees of 01.04.2003 for purposes of pension;

C/SCA/21677/2019 ORDER DATED: 22/02/2023

(D) To pass any other Order or Orders(s) which may be deemed to fit for the interest of the justice"

2. It is an admitted fact that all the petitioners have retired before 1st April, 2003 and are seeking the benefits of revised pension as per the scale recommended by the Shetty Pay Commission.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Hemang Shah appearing for the respondent No.2 authority has specifically stated that as per the orders passed by the Supreme Court, the recommendations of Shetty Pay Commission are made applicable from 1st April, 2003 onwards for the non- judicial staff of the Sub-ordinate Courts and, hence, since the petitioners have retired prior to aforesaid date, they are not entitled for any revision of pension.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Anand Gogia, while placing reliance on the decision in the case of All Manipur Pensioners Association vs. The State of Manipur & Ors., reported in AIR 2019 SC 3338 has submitted that the petitioners are entitled to revised pension even if they have retired prior to cut-off date.

5. In the present case, it is not in dispute that all the petitioners, who were serving under the different courts of the State, have retired prior to 1 st April, 2003. The petitioners are claiming benefit of the recommendations of the Shetty Pay Commission which are implemented

C/SCA/21677/2019 ORDER DATED: 22/02/2023

with effect from 1st April, 2003. It is not in dispute that the date of 1st April, 2003 is upheld by the Supreme Court in various judgments. As per the order passed by the Apex Court in a group of petitions in the case of All India Judges Association & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., I.A. No.297 of 2012 and allied matters, decided on 16 th March, 2015, the Apex Court has observed thus;

"Therefore, after the said order, the recommendations insofar as they related to the grant of certain benefits and grant of different scales of pay as set out in age 274 were to be implemented w.e.f. 01.04.2003. In paragrah (I), the High Court on judicial/administrative side was to ensure implementation of the recommendation within a reasonable period of one year and such implementation was to take effect from 01.04.2003. In paragraph (iii), the benefit of one advance increment as was directed to be given in the recommendation of the Shetty Commission was directed to be given on the existing pay-scale instead of initial pay scale. Here again the High Court was directed to ensure that the same was duly implemented. In paragraph (iv), it was directed that in some of the States, based on various other Pay Commission reports, benefits had been given to the members of the staff and it was made clear that those benefits should be in addition to the recommendation given by the Shetty Commission. Finally, the choice was left to the members of the staff who were getting higher benefits under any of the recommendation of the Pay Commission/Government Order, they were to be permitted to avail those benefits. The sum and substance of the order of this Court was, in the first place, that the recommendation of the Shetty Commission was to be implemented from 01.04.2003."

6. Thus, the recommendation of the Shetty Pay Commission has been implemented from 1 st April, 2003 and, accordingly, the benefits have been extended to such employees who have retired after the aforesaid date. As

C/SCA/21677/2019 ORDER DATED: 22/02/2023

the prayer clauses noticed herein above suggest that the petitioners have not challenged the cut-off date or the implementation of the recommendation of the Shetty Pay Commission with effect from 1st April, 2003 and, however, they are claiming the benefits of such pay commission which has been implemented after the said date. Since the issue with regard to the implementation of the Shetty Pay Commission is already laid quietus by the Supreme Court and recommendation of the said commission is already accepted with effect from 1st April, 2003, this Court cannot accede to the request made by the petitioners for granting them the benefits of revision of pay dehors the cut-off date. The judgment, on which, reliance is placed by the petitioners in the case of All Manipur Pensioners Association (supra) will not apply to the facts of the present case since in the present case, the recommendation of the Shetty Pay Commission itself has been accepted and validated by the Apex Court from the date of 1st April, 2003. The observations made by the Apex Court in the case of All Manipur Pensioners Association (supra) cannot, in any manner, apply to the present case, as in the present case, the recommendations of Shetty Pay Commission are exclusively made applicable to the staff of the judiciary and has been given effect from 1 st April, 2003 which has been finalized by the Supreme Court.

C/SCA/21677/2019 ORDER DATED: 22/02/2023

7. Accordingly, pursuant to the orders passed by the Supreme Court as well as by this Court, the State Government, Legal Department has issued the resolution dated 2nd September, 2011 as well as the resolution dated 29th October, 2015, wherein it is specifically mentioned that the recommendation of the Shetty Pay Commission shall be given with effect from 1 st April, 2003. It is specifically mentioned in Paragraph-5 of the Resolution dated 2nd September, 2011 that the employees who have retired from service during the period between 1 st April, 2003 to 31st December, 2005 shall be entitled to pensionary benefits as per the Shetty Pay Commission. The resolution dated 2nd September, 2011, in paragraph- 1, stipulates that the pay revision as per the recommendation of the Shetty Pay Commission shall be given from 1st April, 2003 to 31st December, 2005.

8. Under these circumstances, in the absence of any challenge to the aforesaid resolutions also, this writ application fails and is hereby rejected. Notice is discharged.

(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)

VAHID