Gujarat High Court
M K Panchal vs State Of Gujarat on 23 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1519/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1519 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
M K PANCHAL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PR ABICHANDANI(102) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS. PRACHI UPADHYAY FOR MR VAIBHAV A VYAS(2896) for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS. DHWANI TRIPATHI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 - STATE
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 23/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. The present petition is filed by the petitioner
for seeking the following reliefs:
"A) direct the respondent authorities to grant the first
higher grade scale of Rs. 4500-7000 to the petitioner with
effect from 1.1.1996, with all consequential benefits, and
(B) quash and set aside the Government Resolution dated
18.8.2009, Annexure-F to this petition, in so far as it
resolved that the cases of the persons who had availed the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1519/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
benefit of first higher grade scale prior to 1.1.1996 should
not be re-opened, and
(C) award the cost of this petition, and
(D) pending admission and final disposal of this petition the
Honourable Court may be pleased to direct the respondent
authorities to grant the first higher grade scale of Rs.
4500-7000 to the petitioner with effect from 1.1.1996 with
all consequential benefits and further be pleased to direct
the respondent authorities to make payment of arrears to
the petitioner, and
(E) grant any other relief or pass any other order which
the Honourable Court may consider as just and proper in
the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. Brief facts as stated in the memo of the petition
are as under:
2.1 It is the case of the petitioner in this petition that
the petitioner is working in the cadre of Surveyor since
12.11.1981 and prior to Revision of Pay Rules, 1998, the
hierarchy of posts of Surveyor, Senior Clerk, and
Maintenance Surveyor was different and their pay-scales
were also different. It is further the case of the
petitioner in this petition that prior to the Revision of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1519/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
Pay Rules 1998, the persons working in the cadre of
Surveyor in the pay-scale of Rs. 1200-1800/- were entitled
to the first higher grade scale of the post of Senior
Clerk, carrying the pay-scale of Rs. 1200-2040, upon
completion of 9 years of service and pursuant to the
Revision of Pay Rules, 1998, which was implemented
with retrospective effect from 01.01.1996, the pay-scales
of the above referred posts namely Surveyor, Senior
Clerk and Maintenance Surveyor were revised and
merged together into an identical pay-scale of Rs. 4000-
6000 and the pay-scale of the next higher post of
Sheristedar was revised to Rs. 4500-7000. It is further
the case of the petitioner in this petition that due to the
implementation of the Revision of Pay Rules, a situation
was created whereby, the persons who were appointed in
the year 1987 or thereafter in the cadre of Surveyor
would be getting the first higher grade scale of the post
of Shirestedar carrying the pay-scale of Rs. 4500-7000,
upon completing nine years service on the said post,
since they became eligible for the first higher pay-scale
only after 1.1.1996, whereas the petitioner, who is
admittedly senior to those persons, is getting the pay-
scale of Rs. 4500-7000, as the second higher grade scale
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1519/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
only upon completion of 24 years of service, instead of
Rs. 5000-8000, which he is entitled to get.
2.2 It is further the case of the petitioner in this
petition that the petitioner has made several
representations to remove this anomaly. It is further the
case of the petitioner in this petition that even the head
of the department, having found substance in the
grievance of the petitioner, has made detailed
recommendation to the authorities of the Government,
requesting them to grant the first higher pay-scale of Rs.
4500-7000 to the petitioner and similarly situated
persons. It is further the case of the petitioner in this
petition that pursuant to the said recommendations, the
authorities of the Government resolved to grant the
benefit of first higher pay-scale of Rs. 4500-7000 to the
persons, who were eligible for the same on or after
01.01.1996. However, it was further resolved that the
cases of the persons, who had availed the benefit of first
higher grade scale prior to 01.01.1996 should not be re-
opened. It is further the case of the petitioner in this
petition that once again the head of the department
respondent No.3 made a detailed proposal to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1519/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
authorities of the Government, explaining in detail as to
why the benefit of the pay-scale of Rs. 4500-7000 should
be granted to the petitioner and other similarly situated
persons and recommended to grant the said benefit of
the petitioner and similarly situated persons. It is
further the case of the petitioner in this petition that
thereafter, the Government by letter dated 25.08.2009
informed the petitioner that the request of the petitioner
for grant of second higher pay-scale of Rs. 5000-8000
cannot be accepted. Hence, the present petition has been
preferred.
3. Heard Ms. Prachi Upadhyay, learned advocate
appearing on behalf of Mr. Vaibhav Vyas, learned
advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Dhwani Tripathi,
learned Assistant Government Pleader for the
respondents-State.
4.1 Ms. Prachi Upadhyay, learned advocate appearing
on behalf of Mr. Vaibhav Vyas, learned advocate for the
petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court towards
the contentions raised in the present petition and has
submitted that the petitioner is working in the cadre of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1519/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
Surveyor since 12.11.1981 and prior to Revision of Pay
Rules, 1998, the hierarchy of posts of Surveyor, Senior
Clerk, and Maintenance Surveyor was different and their
pay-scales were also different. She has further submitted
that prior to the Revision of Pay Rules 1998, the
persons working in the cadre of Surveyor in the pay-
scale of Rs. 1200-1800/- were entitled to the first higher
grade scale of the post of Senior Clerk, carrying the pay-
scale of Rs. 1200-2040, upon completion of 9 years of
service. She has further submitted that pursuant to the
Revision of Pay Rules, 1998, which was implemented
with retrospective effect from 01.01.1996, the pay-scales
of the above referred posts namely Surveyor, Senior
Clerk and Maintenance Surveyor were revised and
merged together into an identical pay-scale of Rs. 4000-
6000 and the pay-scale of the next higher post of
Sheristedar was revised to Rs. 4500-7000. She has
further submitted that due to the implementation of the
Revision of Pay Rules, a situation was created whereby,
the persons who were appointed in the year 1987 or
thereafter in the cadre of Surveyor would be getting the
first higher grade scale of the post of Sirestedar carrying
the pay-scale of Rs. 4500-7000, upon completing nine
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1519/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
years service on the said post, since they became eligible
for the first higher pay-scale only after 1.1.1996, whereas
the petitioner, who is admittedly senior to those persons,
is getting the pay-scale of Rs. 4500-7000, as the second
higher grade scale only upon completion of 24 years of
service, instead of Rs. 5000-8000, which he is entitled to
get. She has further submitted that the petitioner has
made several representations to remove this anomaly.
She has further submitted that even the head of the
department, having found substance in the grievance of
the petitioner, has made detailed recommendation to the
authorities of the Government, requesting them to grant
the first higher pay-scale of Rs. 4500-7000 to the
petitioner and similarly situated persons. She has further
submitted that pursuant to the said recommendations,
the authorities of the Government resolved to grant the
benefit of first higher pay-scale of Rs. 4500-7000 to the
persons, who were eligible for the same on or after
01.01.1996. However, it was further resolved that the
cases of the persons, who had availed the benefit of first
higher grade scale prior to 01.01.1996 should not be re-
opened. She has further submitted that once again the
head of the department respondent No.3 made a detailed
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1519/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
proposal to the authorities of the Government, explaining
in detail as to why the benefit of the pay-scale of Rs.
4500-7000 should be granted to the petitioner and other
similarly situated persons and recommended to grant the
said benefit of the petitioner and similarly situated
persons.
4.2 She has further submitted that thereafter, the
Government by letter dated 25.08.2009 informed the
petitioner that the request of the petitioner for grant of
second higher pay-scale of Rs. 5000-8000 cannot be
accepted and, therefore, the present petition has been
filed as such action of the respondent will certainly
create anomaly of pay amongst the similarly situated
persons and not only that, the petitioner is more senior
and getting less pay and, therefore, she has submitted
that considering the facts stated at the bar, it is clear
case of discrimination and is required to be considered
appropriately.
4.3 She has also submitted that other similarly situated
persons, who are junior to the petitioner namely Mr.
R.K. Patel is getting higher pay than the present
petitioner, who is appointed almost 10 years prior to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1519/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
appointment of Mr. Patel and, therefore, considering this
anomaly, prayer prayed in the present petition is
required to be granted. In support of her submissions,
she has relied upon the common order dated 28.11.2011
passed by the Court in Special Civil Application
No.12541 of 2011 and allied matters and has prayed to
allow the present petition.
5.1 Per contra, Ms. Dhwani Tripathi, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for the respondents-State has drawn
the attention of this Court towards the affidavit-in-reply
filed by the respondent and has submitted that the posts
namely surveyor, senior clerk, and maintenance surveyor
were merged together into Rs. 4,000-6,000 in the year
1996. She has further submitted that before the year
1996, the posts of surveyor, Senior Clerk, and
Maintenance Surveyor had different pay scales. She has
further submitted that the petitioner originally was
recruited in the year 1981 as a surveyor carrying the
pay-scale of Rs. 1200-1800; at that time senior clerk was
carrying the pay-scale of Rs. 1200-2040 and maintenance
surveyor was carrying the pay-scale of Rs. 1320-2040.
She has further submitted that as per his relevant pay-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1519/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
scale and counting of service, the petitioner had been
given second higher grade scale in Rs.4500-125-7000 in
the year 2009 vide order dated 20.03.2009 and w.e.f
12.11.2005. She has further submitted that the petitioner
was sanctioned second higher grade scale of the post of
Shirastedar in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000. She has
further submitted that since the posts of surveyor, Senior
Clerk, and Maintenance Surveyor were merged together
into pay-scale of Rs. 4000-6000, therefore, the petitioner
had been given second higher grade pay-scale of Rs.
4500-7000 in the year 2009 w.e.f. the year 2005. She
has further submitted that the persons who join in new
merged cadre in 1990-91 their pay-scale was decided of
Rs. 4000-6000 and, therefore, they are entitled to First
higher grade scale of the post of Shirastedar in the pay
scale of Rs. 4500-7000. She has further submitted that
the petitioner had received two higher pay-scales in his
service. She has further submitted that Government
Resolution dated 18.08.2008 clarifies that the cases of the
person who have availed the benefit of first higher grade
scales prior to 01.01.1996 should not be reopened. In the
present case, petitioner had been already granted first
higher grade pay-scales in the year 1990 as per his
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1519/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
recruitment rules and pay-scales of his joining date and
the petitioner had been also granted second higher grade
pay-scales w.e.f the year 2005.
5.2 She has also referred to the Chart which is
prepared for the comparison of the salary of present
petitioner and has submitted that the petitioner - Mr.
M.K. Panchal was appointed on 12.11.1981 and Mr. R.K.
Patel, who was referred by the petitioner in his petition,
who was appointed on 11.01.1991. She has submitted
th
that after getting benefits of 7 Pay Commission from
01.01.2016, the pay of the petitioner was fixed at
Rs.53,600/- and against the same, after getting the
th
benefit of 7 Pay Commission, Mr. R.K. Patel, the pay
of Mr. R.K. Patel was fixed at Rs.50,500/-. Therefore,
she has submitted that apparently, Mr. R.K. Patel is
getting lesser pay than the present petitioner and,
therefore, the say of the petitioner that the petitioner is
getting lesser pay than his juniors is not correct.
5.3 In support of her submissions, she has submitted
that in the present case, the petitioner has relied upon
the common order dated 28.11.2011 passed by the Court
in Special Civil Application No.12541 of 2011 and allied
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1519/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
matters and has submitted that the Hon'ble Court has
considered the prayers of similarly situated persons. She
has submitted that the said petitioners belong to
different departments and are governed by the
Government Resolution dated 10.10.2007 which was
challenged by the petitioners of those petitions. In the
present case, the petitioner is governed by Government
Resolution dated 18.08.2008 and the Clause-6 specifically
states that any person who has received first higher
great pay before 01.01.1996, those cases cannot be
reopened. She has pointed out from the list of Gradation
list by which the petitioner has described as seniority
list in his Sur-Rejoinder and has submitted that the
person listed at Sr. No. 148 has joined the present
department by way of transfer from other division and
the respondent has not made appointment in the
respondent - department in the year 1987. She has
further submitted that the person at Sr. No. 148 was
originally appointed in the year 1978 and, therefore, may
receive higher pay than the present petitioner and,
therefore, she has submitted that the present petition is
misconceived and is required to be dismissed as it is not
maintainable in the eyes of law.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1519/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
6.1 I have considered the rival submissions made at the
bar. I have also considered the relevant aspects of the
matter. It clearly transpires that the petitioner is
admittedly getting higher pay than Mr RK Patel. The
pay of the petitioner is fixed at Rs.53,600/- from
01.01.2016, whereby the pay of Mr. R.K. Patel, who is
junior to the petitioner is fixed at Rs.50,500/- as
indicated by the learned AGP for the respondent. It is
also required to be noted that the person who is
mentioned at serial No.148 in the Gradation List is
transferred from the other department and was appointed
prior to the present petitioner in the year 1978 and,
therefore, he might have received higher pay than the
present petitioner.
6.2 Considering the common order dated 28.11.2011 cited
at the bar by learned advocate for the petitioner passed
by this Hon'ble Court in Special Civil Application
No.12541 of 2011 and allied matters, it transpires that
the facts of that case are clearly different from the facts
of the present case. Those petitioners were from the
different departments and were governed by the
Government Resolution dated 10.10.2007 and the present
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1519/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
petitioner is governed by the Government Resolution
dated 18.08.2008, whereby Clause 6 specifically prescribes
that the persons, who have received first higher grade
pay before 01.01.2016, the cases of those persons cannot
be reopened and, therefore, from any count, it cannot be
said that petitioner is not getting appropriate benefit and
considering the Government Resolution dated 18.08.2008,
the department has rightly not considered the case of
the petitioner by reopening the same, more particularly,
in view of the Clause 6 and, therefore, I am of the
opinion that there is no substance in the submission
made by learned advocate for the petitioner and all the
prayers made in the present petition are misconceived as
no case is made out on merits by the present petitioner
and, therefore, the present petition is required to be
dismissed as it is found meritless.
7. In view of the above, the present petition is
dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule stands
discharged.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)
DIWAKAR SHUKLA
