Gujarat High Court
Chief Administrative Officer vs Kaila Shravan Halubhai on 5 August, 2024
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/782/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 782 of 2024
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17845 of 2023
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2024
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 782 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see No
the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the No
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as No
to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any
order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER & ANR.
Versus
KAILA SHRAVAN HALUBHAI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
for the Respondent(s) No. 14
MS SHRUTI DHRUVE AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 13
MR. MUKESH T MISHRA(5900) for the Respondent(s) No.
1,10,11,12,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
Date : 05/08/2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/782/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2024
undefined
1. Admit. Mr.Mukesh T.Mishra, learned advocate waives service
of notice of admission on behalf of respondent Nos.
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 and 12 and Ms. Shruti Dhruve, learned AGP
waives service of notice of admission on behalf of respondent
No.13.
2. The present appeal emanates from the judgment and order
dated 29.04.2024, wherein and whereby the learned Single Judge
has allowed the writ petition and has directed the appellant to
grant the benefits of Circular dated 16.07.2019.
3. At the outset, Mr.H.S.Munshaw, learned advocate for the
appellants submitted that the respondents have failed to justify their
claim of benefits of minimum pay-scale available to Class IV
employees i.e. of Rs.14,800/- as per Circular dated 16.07.2019
issued by the Government of Gujarat, through its Finance
Department to those part-timers who are working for more than
four hours per day. It is averred in the memo of appeal that the
respondents have not produced any documentary evidence to justify
their working hours for more than four hours per day during their
service tenure, more particularly, w.e.f. 01.01.2019. It is further
submitted that respondent Nos. 1,7,8,9 and 11 have already
attained the age of retirement and are not in service as part timers
since long. It is finally submitted by learned advocate that the
Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board is an independent
statutory body and the Circular dated 16.07.2019 will not be
applicable to it automatically unless it is adopted. Thus, it is urged
that the appeal may be dismissed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/782/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2024
undefined
4. Per contra, Mr. Mukesh Mishra, learned advocate for the
respondents has submitted that the impugned order does not require
any interference since, the same is precisely passed. He has
submitted that on the contrary the documents which are received
by respondents under the RTI reveal that they are working as part
timers. It is submitted that they are also entitled to the minimum
fixed pay of Rs.14,800/- as per the Circular dated 16.07.2019 issued
by the State Government.
5. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties. On a specific query raised by us to learned
advocate Mr.Mishra to point out that at the time of retirement,
whether respondent Nos.1,7,8,9 and 11 were being paid particular
amount as per the Minimum Wages Act or is there any documents
to point out that they were paid a specific wages or salary, which
is less then Rs.14,800/- , however, he is unable to satisfy us since
neither in the writ petition nor before the learned Single Judge, the
petitioners (respondents) have specified their wages or salary which
they were receiving. The writ petition is bereft of any such details.
6. The respondents, by filing the writ petition, have claimed the
wages as declared by the State Government vide Finance
Department Circular dated 16.07.2019 for its employees wherein it
is held that the part timers, who are working for four hours or
more, are entitled to fixed wage of Rs. 14,800/-.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/782/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2024
undefined
7. Thus, the entire claim of the respondents is premised on the
Circular dated 16.07.2019.
8. Learned advocate Mr.Mishra, is unable to point out that the
aforesaid Circular issued by the State Government has been adopted
by the appellant-Board. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer
to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh
Pravinchandra Rajyaguru vs. Gujarat Water Supply & Sewerage
Board and Ors., 2021 (19) SCC 128. In the case of very same
appellant-Board it is held thus:
"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 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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/782/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2024
undefined
01.05.1991 and 15.02.1992 till specifically adopted by the
Respondent - Board like adoption of the parent Resolution dated
17.10.1988.
13.5 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.
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.
14. At the cost of repetition, it is observed that unless and until
the Board has specifically adopted the Government Resolutions of
1991 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/782/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2024
undefined
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.
9. Thus, as held by the Apex Court, the appellant - Board is
an independent statutory body and is not directly governed by the
Government circulars issued by the State Government extending the
benefits of pay or wages in favour of its employees. Unless and
until the Board adopts such circulars or Government Resolutions
issued by the State Government, the same cannot automatically
apply to the employees of the appellant - Board. Hence, the
present appeal succeeds, the impugned order judgment passed by
the learned Single Judge is hereby quashed and set aside.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
(MAUNA M. BHATT,J)
NAIR SMITA V./06
