Desai Pravinchandra Ranchhodbhai vs State Of Gujarat
2024 Latest Caselaw 3368 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Desai Pravinchandra Ranchhodbhai vs State Of Gujarat on 16 April, 2024

                                                                                   NEUTRAL CITATION




    C/SCA/21100/2016                              JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2024

                                                                                   undefined




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21100 of 2016
                                  With
              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21103 of 2016

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

================================================================

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

2    To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                           Yes

3    Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy                  No
     of the judgment ?

4    Whether this case involves a substantial question                  No
     of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
     of India or any order made thereunder ?

================================================================
              DESAI PRAVINCHANDRA RANCHHODBHAI & ORS.
                                Versus
                       STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
DECEASED LITIGANT for the Petitioner(s) No. 10,4,5
MS VIDHI J BHATT(6155) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1,10.1,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,2,20,21,3,4.1,5.1,6,7,8,9
MS DHARITRI PANCHOLI AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,4,5
================================================================

    CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
          PRACHCHHAK

                             Date : 16/04/2024

                            ORAL JUDGMENT

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/21100/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2024

undefined

1. Present petitions are filed by the respective petitioners

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following

reliefs;

"(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents herein to apply the oral judgment dated 31.03.2014 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.834 of 2012 and Government Resolution dated 28.07.2015 to the petitioners;

(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to declare that the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities of applying the oral judgment dated 31.03.2014 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.834 of 2012 and Government Resolution dated 28.07.2015 to the petitioners is bad in law, arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory and violative of the petitioners' fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India;

(C) Your Lordships may be pleased to declare Government Resolution dated 08.10.1992 as arbitrary and discriminatory and thus violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India to the extent that it made the revision of pay scale of the petitioners effective from 01.04.1992 instead of 01.01.1986;

(CA) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the impugned Government Resolution dated 27.03.2017 from the Panchayat, Rural Housing and Rural Development Department as illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and thus violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and quashing and setting aside the same.

(D) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondent authorities to

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/21100/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2024

undefined

apply the pay scale of Rs.1640 - 2900 to the petitioners from 01.01.1986 and not from 01.04.1992 and consequently, refix their pay in the corresponding pay scales recommended by the Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Central Pay Commissions with corresponding revision of retirement benefits, such as pension, gratuity etc. accordingly, wherever applicable;

(E) Pending admission and final hearing of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioners for grant of pay scale of Rs.1640 - 2900 with effect from 01.01.1986; and

(F) Your Lordships be pleased to pass any other appropriate order, as deemed fit, in the interest of justice;"

2. As both the petitions are arising out of the same issue, they

are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The issues arise in both the petitions are to give effect to

the Government Resolution dated 09.10.1992 from 01.01.1986

instead of 01.04.1992 and to pay the arrears of difference in

salary and difference in increments with interest and refix the

salaries / pay of the Additional Assistant Engineers.

4. As both the petitions are relating to the same issue, both

the petitions have been tagged and the same are disposed of by

this common judgment by treating Special Civil application

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/21100/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2024

undefined

No.2100 of 2016 as lead matter.

5. So far as the lead matter, i.e. Special Civil Application

No.21100 of 2016 is concerned, same is arising from the

following background of facts:-

5.1 The petitioners came to be appointed as Additional

Assistant Engineers in the roads and Building Division and

Irrigation Division of Bhavnagar District Panchayat and some of

the petitioners were retired from the services on their attaining

the age of superannuation. It is the case of the petitioners that

the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission came in the

year 1986 and the State Government accepted the

recommendations of the Pay Commission. That the pay scales of

the Assistant Engineers and Additional Assistant Engineers were

revised by the Gujarat Civil Services (Revision of Pay) Rules 1987

w.e.f. 01.01.1986 and the pay scale of Assistant Engineer was

revised from Rs.550 - 900 to Rs.1640 - 2900 and that of

Additional Assistant Engineers from Rs.425 - 700 to Rs.1400 -

2300 w.e.f. 01.01.1986. The Fourth Pay Commission had

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/21100/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2024

undefined

provided for 29 pay scales, whereas the State Government had

54 pay scales in existence at the time, as a result of which there

arose anomaly in the grant of pay scales and, therefore, the High

Level Committee was constituted by the State Government to

deal with this aspect and the representations of employees'

associations. On the basis of the recommendations of the High

Power Committee, by way of amendment to the Gujarat Civil

Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 1987, vide Notification dated

20.03.1991, the revised pay of Assistant Engineers, Rs. 1640-

2900 was substituted by Rs. 2000-3200 with effect from the

original date, namely 01.01.1986. Since the pay scale of the

Additional Assistant Engineers was not similarly revised, the

Additional Assistant Engineers' Association filed Special Civil

Application no. 451 of 1991 before this Court and pending

Special Civil Application no. 451 of 1991, respondent no. 1 wrote

a letter to the President of the Additional Assistant Engineers'

Association giving them assurance that they would be given the

same treatment as was given to the Assistant Engineers and

asked them to withdraw the said petition. Relying upon the said

assurance, the Additional Assistant Engineers' Association

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/21100/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2024

undefined

withdrew the said petition.

5.2 It is the case of the petitioners that by Resolution dated

08.10.1992, by way of amendment to revision of Pay Rules,

1987, pay scale of the Additional Assistant Engineers was revised

from Rs. 1400-2300 to Rs. 1640-2900 with effect from

01.04.1992. In the case of Junior Geologists, the respondent no.1

revised their pay scale by Government Resolution dated

17.10.1992 with effect from 01.01.1986. In case of the Additional

Assistant Engineers, the aforesaid revision of pay scales ought to

have been given effect to from 01.01.1986. However, though the

Assistant Engineers and Junior Geologists were given the revised

pay scale with effect from 01.01.1986, the Additional Assistant

Engineers were given the revised pay scale with effect from

01.04.1992. Due to the said discriminatory treatment, the

Additional Assistant Engineers' Association approached this Court

by way of filing Special Civil Application No. 5210 of 1995

seeking application revision of their pay scale with effect

01.01.1986 in parity with Assistant Engineers. By its CAV

Judgment dated 28.03.2012, this Hon'ble Court dismissed the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/21100/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2024

undefined

aforesaid Special Civil Application no. 5210 of 1995. Aggrieved,

the Additional Assistant Engineers' Association preferred Letters

Patent Appeal no. 834 of 2012 against the CAV Judgment dated

28.03.2012. By its Oral Judgment dated 31.03.2014, the Hon'ble

Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court partly allowed the Letters

Patent Appeal no. 834 of 2012 with the direction to the

respondents to give notional revised pay scale with effect from

01.01.1986 and actual payment of revised pay scale with effect

from 01.04.1992 to the members of the appellate Association.

The petitioners herein Additional Assistant Engineers belonging

to District Panchayat requested the State Government to apply

the aforesaid decision of this Court dated 31.03.2014 to their

case and make their revision of pay also effective from

01.01.1986. As the oral judgment dated 31.03.2014 passed in

Letters Patent Appeal no. 834 of 2012 was not implemented by

the respondents therein, the Additional Assistant Engineers'

Association preferred a contempt petition before this Hon'ble

Court, being numbered as Misc. Civil Application no. 1868 of

2015. Pending the contempt petition, the respondent no. 1

issued a Government Resolution dated 28.07.2015 to comply

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/21100/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2024

undefined

with the oral judgment dated 31.03.2014 passed in Letters

Patent Appeal no. 834 of 2012. In the said Government

Resolution, it was stated that the Additional Assistant Engineers

working with the Narmada Water Resources, Water Supply and

Kapsar Department would get the benefits of the Fourth Pay

Commission pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 with effect from

01.01.1986. It was further stated that from 01.01.1986 to

01.04.1992, the said pay scale would be revised notionally and

the actual payment for the revised pay scale shall be made with

effect from 01.04.1992. It was further stated that the

Government is planning to challenge the said decision dated

31.03.2014 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and, therefore,

the payment made to the concerned employees would be

subject to the final outcome of the proceedings before the

Hon'ble Supreme Court.

5.3 Pursuant to the oral judgment dated 31.03.2014 passed in

Letters Patent Appeal no. 834 of 2012 and Government

Resolution dated 28.07.2015, the Accounts Officer, Pay

Verification Centre, Gandhinagar on 25.04.2016 approved the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/21100/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2024

undefined

pay revision made by the Deputy Executive Engineer, District

Panchayat, Botad in case of one Mr. B. S. Parmar, Additional

Assistant Engineer. The Fourth Pay Commission pay scale of Mr.

B. S. Parmar came to be revised from 01.01.1986 and

accordingly, his pay came to be refixed in the consequent Fifth

and Sixth Pay Commission pay scales. As the said benefit was

rot extended to the petitioners, they approached this Hon'ble

Court, by way of filing Special Civil Application no. 21100 of

2016, seeking the application of the ratio of the decision of this

Hon'ble Court dated 31.03.2014 passed in Letters Patent Appeal

no. 834 of 2012 and extending the benefit of Government

Resolution dated 28.07.2015 to them. During the pendency of

the present petition, by its Government Resolution dated

27.03.2017, the Panchayat, Rural Housing and Rural

Development Department rejected the representation of the

petitioners for grant to revised pay scale with effect from

01.01.1986.

6. Heard Ms.Vidhi J. Bhatt, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners, Ms.Dharitri Pancholi, learned Assistant Government

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/21100/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2024

undefined

Pleader appearing for the respondent - State Authorities and

Mr.H. S. Munshaw, learned counsel appearing for respondent

No.3. Perused the materials placed on record.

7. Ms.Vidhi J. Bhatt, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners has submitted the same facts which are narrated in

the memo of petition. She has submitted that the inaction on the

part of the respondent - Authorities is illegal, arbitrary and

discriminatory. She has submitted that the benefits of revised

pay scale is required to be granted to the petitioners in view of

the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters

Patent Appeal No.834 of 2012 and to confer the benefit of the

revised pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.1986 on notional basis and on

actual basis w.e.f. 01.04.1992. She has submitted that the facts

of the case of the petitioners are identical as the petitioners are

appointed by following regular recruitment procedure

undertaken by the Gujarat Panchayat Service Selection Board.

She has submitted that the Additional Assistant Engineers were

serving in Panchayats (Irrigation Department) and/or under the

Road and Buildings Department in Panchayat or in Irrigation

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/21100/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2024

undefined

Department and/or Road and Buildings Department under the

State services are considered as same cadre posts and therefore

the petitioners are entitled to pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 w.e.f.

01.01.1986. In support of her submissions, Ms.Bhatt, learned

counsel has referred to and relied upon the decisions in the case

of (i) State of Gujarat and another Vs. Raman Lal Keshav

Lal Soni and others reported in (1983) 2 SCC 33, (ii) Inder

Pal Yadav and others Vs. Union of India and others

reported in (1985) 2 SCC 648 and (iii) Vipulkumar Atmaram

Parekh and others Vs. State of Gujarat through the

Secretary and others reported in 2009 (5) GLR 3914.

7.1 Over-and-above the oral submissions, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners has submitted the following written

submissions.

15. It is submitted that the in the operative part of oral judgment dated 31.03.2014 passed in Letters Patent Appeal no. 834 of 2012, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court held as under:

"11. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length and in great detail. We have also perused the documents on record as well as the order passed by the learned Single Judge. It reveals from the record that the petitioners members were always treated along with

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/21100/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2024

undefined

the category of Engineers of the same department and for the first time they were not treated along with the Assistant Engineers.

12. In light of this back ground, we are of the opinion that the members of the Petitioner Association ought to have been treated equally w.e.f. 1.1.1986. In view of this fact, we are of the opinion that the end of justice would be served if the respondents are directed to give notional revised pay scale to the members of the association w.e.f. 1/1/1986 and make actual payment from 1/4/1992.

13. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The respondents are directed to give notional revised pay scale w.e.f. 1/1/1986 and actual payment of revised pay scale w.e.f. 1/4/1992 to the members of the appellate Association. Parties to bear their own costs."

From this, it is clear that the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court upheld the principle that equals or similarly situated persons should be treated equally so as to be in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

In the case of the present petitioners, since the inception, the cadre of Additional Assistant Engineers in the Panchayat Department and that in other Departments of the Government have always been treated on par with each other. A common seniority list of Supervisors (C) (now Additional Assistant Engineers) of other departments and Supervisors (C)(now Additional Assistant Engineers) of panchayat service has all along been maintained. In other words, Additional Assistant Engineers of panchayat service have always been treated along with the Additional Assistant Engineers of the other departments and now for the first time they were discriminated against the Additional Assistant Engineers not in the matter of giving the same revised pay scale but for giving the effective date from which the said revision would take place. It is, therefore, submitted that there is no rational justification for not granting the petitioners the revised pay with effect from 01.01.1986, in terms of the oral judgment dated 31.03.2014 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Letters Patent Appeal no. 834 of 2012.

16. It is submitted that due to anomalous situation created by the application of the revised pay scales, on the basis of

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/21100/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2024

undefined

the recommendations of the High Power Committee, pay scales of both the cadres of Assistant Engineers and Additional Assistant Engineers were revised from what were originally given. However, in the case of Assistant Engineers, it was given from 01.01.1986 and for Additional Assistant Engineers, it was made effective from 01.04.1992. By order dated 31.03.2014 passed in Letters Patent Appeal no. 834 of 2012, this Hon'ble Court directed the respondents therein to give effect to the revised pay scales given to the Additional Assistant Engineers of Narmada Water Resources, Water Supply and Kalpsar Department notionally from 01.01.1986 and make actual payment from 01.04.1992. Instead of applying the ratio of this decision to the petitioners herein, the respondent no. 2 by its Resolution dated 27.03.2017 rejected their claim for parity with the Additional Assistant Engineers of the Narmada Water Resources, Water Supply and Kalpsar Department and denied them the benefit of the revised pay scale with effect from 01.01.1986, which is discriminatory. unreasonable and thus violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The only reason for denying the said benefit given by the respondent no. 2 in its Resolution dated 27.03.2017 is that the benefit of Government Resolution dated 28.07.2015 is to be given to Additional Assistant Engineers working with Narmada Water Resources, Water Supply and Kalpsar Department and not to Additional Assistant Engineers working with any other department. This reason is no reason in the eye of law. In the absence of proper justification for adopting a different policy and in the absence of cogent reasons justifying the reasonableness of the classification and differentiation made which meet the requirements of Article 14 of the Constitution, the action of the respondent no. 2 amounts to be discriminatory and cannot be permitted. Parity in employment is required to be maintained and, therefore. keeping in view the circumstances, the action of the respondents in adopting a pick-and-choose method, being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution in the case of employees who form a uniform class, is required to be set aside.

17. It is further submitted that the employees of panchayats are Government servants and all the rules and regulations of Government are applicable to them. The Government Resolution dated 28.07.2015 applying the oral judgment dated 31.03.2014 passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court to the Additional Assistant

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/21100/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2024

undefined

Engineers working with Narmada Water Resources, Water Supply and Kalpsar Department is required to be applied to the Additional Assistant Engineers working with the panchayat department as the cadre of the Additional Assistant Engineers in all the Government departments, including the panchayat department, is the same. Whatever resolutions are passed for Additional Assistant Engineers working in other departments are also required to be applied to Additional Assistant Engineers working in various panchayats. Further, Government letter from General Administration Department issued as far back as on 14.06.1985 provides that all Government Resolutions pertaining to the service conditions, pay, etc. of Government employees are applicable to the employees working in panchayats also, as they are also Government servants. This was again reiterated in Circular dated 27.10.1990 issued by the Gujarat Administration Department. A fortiori, the Gujarat Civil Services (Revision of Pay) Rules are equally applicable to the employees working in panchayats, as they too are Government servants. The petitioners therefore submit that the Government Resolution dated 27.03.2017 from the respondent no. 2 Panchayat, Rural Housing and Rural Development Department rejecting the proposal of the Development Commissioner, Gandhinagar dated 05.04.2016 for grant of revised pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 to the Additional Assistant Engineers in the panchayat department with effect from 01.01.1986, as has been granted to the Additional Assistant Engineers working in other Government departments, is illegal, bad in law, discriminatory and thus violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and thus deserves to be quashed and set aside. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Gujarat and another Vs. Ramlal Keshovlal Soni reported in (1983) 2 SCC 33.

18. It is submitted that the Executive Engineer, Panchayat Irrigation Department, Bhavnagar in its letter dated 14.06.2016 (At pages no. 122-123 of the Memo of petition) and Development Commissioner, Government of Gujarat in its recommendation dated 05.04.2016 and 30.09.2016 have clearly stated that a common seniority list is maintained for the cadre of Additional Assistant Engineer in the State Services and Panchayat Services. Therefore, the Government Resolution dated 28.07.2015 should be made applicable to all the employees working on the cadre of Additional Assistant Engineers, including the panchayat

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/21100/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2024

undefined

employees. In his recommendation dated 05.04.2016, the Development Commissioner, Government of Gujarat, has further stated that by Resolution dated 14.08.1981 and Circular dated 21.03.1989 issued by the Panchayat Department and Circulars dated 23.10.1990 and 25.11.1994 issued by General Administration Department, it is stated that the service conditions, pay etc. of the Government employees granted to a particular cadre are to be extended to the panchayat employee working on the same cadre. Moreover, reliance is also placed on Government Resolution dated 22.08.2014 issued by General Administration Department stating that if a judgment is given in a particular case by the Hon'ble Court, it should be extended to similarly situated employees as well. The Development Commissioner, Government of Gujarat very strongly recommended that the benefit of Government Resolution dated 28.07.2015 should be extended to the Additional Assistant Engineers working in the Panchayats.

19. It is a well-established proposition of law that when a decision has been given by a court in favour of some of the employees and has thereafter been implemented, the same benefit has to be extended to similarly circumstanced employees and that not doing so would amount to discrimination. It would be appropriate to reproduce the following from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Inderpal Yadav vs. Union of India reported in (1985) 2 SCC 648:

"... Therefore, those who could not come to the court need not be at a comparative disadvantage to those who rushed in here. If they are otherwise similarly situated, they are entitled to similar treatment, if not by anyone else at the hands of this court..."

Thus, the courts have, time and again, emphasized that the State should be a model employer. A model employer is one who would not deny the just claim of its employees on any extraneous consideration or ground. And such a model employer should not wait for any directions to be given by the Court to accept the just claim of its employees. Thus, the pay of the petitioners in the Fourth Pay Commission is also required to be made applicable from 01.01.1986. Thus, the inaction of the respondent authorities is violative of the petitioners' fundamental

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/21100/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2024

undefined

rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

20. It is submitted that this Hon'ble Court in Vipulkumar Atmaram Parekh & Others vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2009 (5) GLR 3914 has held that if in previous litigation, particular petitioners were not parties and law on a particular point has been laid down, then that should be followed by the authorities in case of similarly situated employees as well. If such decision is there and it has been brought to the notice of the authorities, yet if not followed, then it would be considered as wilful disregard of the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court and amount to civil contempt. The following proposition of law has been laid down by this Hon'ble Court:

"(1) It is immaterial that in a previous litigation the particular petitioner before the Court was or was not a party, but if law on a particular point has been laid down by the High Court, it must be followed by all authorities and tribunals in the State.

(2) The law laid down by the High Court must be followed by all authorities and subordinate tribunals when it has been declared by the highest Court in the State and they cannot ignore it either in initiating proceeding of deciding on the rights involved in such a proceeding.

(3) If in spite of the earlier exposition of law by the High Court having been pointed out and attention being pointedly drawn to that legal position in utter disregard of that position proceedings are initiated, it must be held to be a wilful disregard of the law laid down by the High Court and would amount to civil contempt as defined in section 2(b) of the Contempt Courts Act, 1971."

Thus, the Resolution dated 27.03.2017 passed by the respondent no. 2 is contemptuous.

21. It is submitted that similarly situated employees are given the benefit of decision dated 31.03.2014 passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal no. 834 of 2012. The Accounts Officer, Pay Verification Centre, Gandhinagar on 25.04.2016 approved the pay revision made by the Deputy Executive Engineer, District Panchayat, Botad in the case of one Mr. B.S. Parmar, Additional Assistant Engineer. The Fourth Pay Commission

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/21100/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2024

undefined

pay scale of Mr. B. S. Parmar came to be revised from 01.01.1986 and accordingly, his pay came to be refixed in the consequent Fifth and Sixth Pay Commission pay scales. In the Government Resolution dated 27.03.2017, the respondent no. 2 has stated that the benefit of Government Resolution dated 28.07.2015 is to be extended to the Additional Assistant Engineers working in Narmada Water Resources, Water Supply and Kalpsar Department. However, recently the Roads and Buildings Department has issued a Resolution dated 13.09.2019 (applying the decision dated 31.03.2014 passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal no. 834 of 2012 to the Additional Assistant Engineers working in the Roads and Buildings Department, who were appointed in service before 01.04.1992. Thus, the benefit of decision dated 31.03.2014 needs to be extended to the petitioners as well.

22. As for the plea taken by the respondent authorities about the additional financial burden on the exchequer, it is submitted that the petitioners are given the revised pay scale with effect from 01.04.1992. By giving effect to from 01.01.1986 would involve paltry additional expenditure to the extent of five increments that would have accrued to the petitioners from 01.01.1986 to 01.04.1992. And this Hon'ble Court granted notionally from 01.01.1986 which was also denied to the petitioners with its adverse and prejudicial effect on the petitioners, thereby reducing their pension to that extent in the evening of their life after a long years of active service, in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution."

8. On the other hand, Ms.Dharitri Pancholi, learned Assistant

Government Pleader appearing for the respondent - State

Authorities has submitted that there is unexplained delay of

around 14 years in approaching this Court. She has referred to

and relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of Union of India Vs. M. Nagarajan reported in (2022)

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/21100/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2024

undefined

2 SCC 25 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held and

observed in para 20 to 25 as under:-

"20. The principles governing delay, laches, and acquiescence are overlapping and interconnected on many occasions. However, they have their distinct characters and distinct elements. One can say that delay is the genus to which laches and acquiescence are species. Similarly, laches might be called a genus to a species by name acquiescence. However, there may be a case where acquiescence is involved, but not laches. These principles are common law principles, and perhaps one could identify that these principles find place in various statutes which restrict the period of limitation and create non- consideration of condonation in certain circumstances. They are bound to be applied by way of practice requiring prudence of the Court than of a strict application of law. The underlying principle governing these concepts would be one of estoppel. The question of prejudice is also an important issue to be taken note of by the Court.

21. The word laches is derived from the French language meaning "remissness and slackness". It thus involves unreasonable delay or negligence in pursuing a claim involving an equitable relief while causing prejudice to the other party. It is neglect on the part of a party to do an act which law requires while asserting a right, and therefore, must stand in the way of the party getting relief or remedy.

22. Two essential factors to be seen are the length of the delay and the nature of acts done during the interval. As stated, it would also involve acquiescence on the part of the party approaching the Court apart from the change in position in the interregnum. Therefore, it would be unjustifiable for a Court of Equity to confer a remedy to a party who knocks its doors when his acts would indicate a waiver of such a right. By his conduct, he has put the other party in a particular position, and therefore, it would be unreasonable to facilitate a challenge before the Court. Thus, a man responsible for his conduct on equity is not expected to be allowed to avail a remedy.

23. A defence of laches can only be allowed when there is

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/21100/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2024

undefined

no statutory bar. The question as to whether there exists a clear case of laches on the part of a person seeking a remedy is one of fact and so also that of prejudice. The said principle may not have any application when the existence of fraud is pleaded and proved by the other side. To determine the difference between the concept of laches and acquiescence is that, in a case involving mere laches, the principle of estoppel would apply to all the defences that are available to a party. Therefore, a defendant can succeed on the various grounds raised by the plaintiff, while an issue concerned alone would be amenable to acquiescence.

24. We have already discussed the relationship between acquiescence on the one hand and delay and laches on the other. Acquiescence would mean a tacit or passive acceptance. It is implied and reluctant consent to an act. In other words, such an action would qualify a passive assent. Thus, when acquiescence takes place, it presupposes knowledge against a particular act. From the knowledge comes passive acceptance, therefore instead of taking any action against any alleged refusal to perform the original contract, despite adequate knowledge of its terms, and instead being allowed to continue by consciously ignoring it and thereafter proceeding further, acquiescence does take place.

25. As a consequence, it reintroduces a new implied agreement between the parties. Once such a situation arises, it is not open to the party that acquiesced itself to insist upon the compliance of the original terms. Hence, what is essential, is the conduct of the parties. We only dealt with the distinction involving a mere acquiescence. When acquiescence is followed by delay, it may become laches. Here again, we are inclined to hold that the concept of acquiescence is to be seen on a case-to-case basis."

8.1 Ms.Pancholi, learned Assistant Government Pleader has

submitted that the petitioners are not entitled for equitable relief

since they have not explained the delay in filing the petitions and

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/21100/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2024

undefined

they cannot claim parity with the employees of the State

Government as the selection, mode of recruitment and the pay

revision between the employees of he State Government and the

employees of the Panchayat Department are different. She has

submitted that in view of the order passed by this Court in

Special Civil Application No.804 of 2017 and Special Civil

Application No.21076 of 2018, the petitioners are similarly

situated to that of the petitioners of the said petitions and,

therefore, the same order may be passed granting benefit of pay

scale of Rs.1640 - 2900 to the petitioners w.e.f. 01.01.1986 on

notional basis and on actual basis w.e.f. 01.04.1992.

9. The issue involved in the present petitions is whether the

petitioners are entitled for the benefit of the revised pay scale,

which has been extended in favour of the similarly situated

persons in Letters Patel Appeal No.834 of 2012 or not.

10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it

appears that the petitioners who are Additional Assistant

Engineers are similarly situated persons to that of the petitioners

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/21100/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2024

undefined

of the said petitions. Similarly situated the Additional Assistant

Engineers' Association have preferred Special Civil Application

No. 5210 of 1995 before this Court seeking revision of the pay

scale with effect 01.01.1986, which came to be dismissed by the

Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.03.2012.

Against the said order, the Additional Assistant Engineers'

Association have preferred Letters Patent Appeal no. 834 of 2012

which came to be partly allowed by the Division Bench of this

Court vide order dated 31.03.2014 with the direction to the

respondents to give notional revised pay scale with effect from

01.01.1986 and actual payment of revised pay scale with effect

from 01.04.1992 to the members of the appellate Association.

The Division Bench of this Court has held and observed in para -

11, 12 and 13 as under:-

"11. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length and in great detail. We have also perused the documents on record as well as the order passed by the learned Single Judge. It reveals from the record that the petitioners members were always treated along with the category of Engineers of same department and for the first time they were not treated along with the Assistant Engineers.

12. In light of this back ground, we are of the opinion that the members of the Petitioner Association ought to have been treated equally w.e.f. 1.1.1986. In view of this fact,

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/21100/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2024

undefined

we are of the opinion that the end of justice would be served if the respondents are directed to give notional revised pay scale to the members of the association w.e.f. 1/1/1986 and maek actual payment from1/4/1992.

13. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The respondents are directed to in given notional revised pay scale w.e.f. 1/1/1986 and actual payment of revised pay scale w.e.f. 1/4/1992 to the members of the appellate Association. Parties to bear their own costs."

11. Having gone through the materials on record as well as the

decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent

Appeal No.834 of 2012 in case of Additional Assistant Engineers

Associations and aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court as well as this Court, I am of the opinion that the

petitioners are entitled to the benefits of revised pay scale as per

the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court which is already

confirmed and approved by the Apex Court by dismissing the

Special Leave Petition No.29901 of 2015 vide order dated

01.10.2015.

12. In view of the foregoing reasons, the impugned order

whereby the benefit of revised pay scale is denied to the

petitioner, is held to be contrary to the order of the Division

Bench which is confirmed by the Supreme Court and therefore,

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/21100/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2024

undefined

the same is liable to be quashed and set aside and the prayers

made in the petitions are required to be granted.

13. In view of the above, the petitions are allowed. The prayers

made in the petitions are granted to the extent that as the order

passed by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.834 of

2012, the petitioners are entitled for the same benefit which is

extended in favour of the appellants of Letters Patent Appeal

No.834 of 2012 in Special Civil Application No.5210 of 1995, to

the effect that the petitioners are entitled to get the benefit of

revised pay scale. As per the observation made by the Division

Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.834 of 2012, the case of the

petitioners to be considered by the State Authority in light of the

settled legal position and pay all the consequential benefit to

them. Thus, the respondents are directed to accordingly revise

the pay scales of the petitioners and pay all such consequential

benefit within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of

this order. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. There

shall be no order as to costs. Direct service is permitted.

(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) V.R. PANCHAL