Gujarat High Court
Ketan M. Pandya vs Jetpur Navagadh Nagarpalika on 3 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9680/2014 ORDER DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9680 of 2014
==========================================================
KETAN M. PANDYA & ANR.
Versus
JETPUR NAVAGADH NAGARPALIKA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS TEJAL K SHAH(2719) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MS. SURBHI BHATI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4,5
MR BHAVESH P TRIVEDI(2731) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR RR TRIVEDI(941) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 03/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present petition is filed for seeking the
following reliefs:
"A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of
mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any
other appropriate writ, order or directions directing the
respondent-authorities to give benefits of 6th Pay
Commission to the petitioners (as per their applications
dated 10.01.2014 (at ANNEXURE-J (Colly.) hereto) and to
grant all consequential benefits to the present petitioners
alongwith arrears/difference of salary with interest and may
further be pleased to quash and set aside impugned
order/communication dated 03.02.2014 (at Annexure-K
(Colly.) hereto);
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9680/2014 ORDER DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of
mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any
other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the
respondent-Nagarpalika to make the petitioners permanent
w.e.f. 01.01.2004 as per order of Hon'ble Tribunal dated
06.03.2004 (at ANNEXURE-A hereto) and to fix the pay
scale of the petitioners by giving increments and other
benefits as are available to permanent employees and to
pay the petitioners accordingly as per the applications of
petitioners dated 31.01.2014 (at ANNEXURE-H (Colly.)
hereto) and per legal as notice issued by the petitioners on
12.03.2013 (at ANNEXURE-G hereto);
(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of
mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any
other appropriate writ, order or directions directing the
respondent-Nagarpalika procedure petitioners permanent set-
up; to do appropriate for absorbing on the sanctioned
(D) During the pendency and final disposal of the present
petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased
to give benefits of 6th Pay Commission to the petitioners
and to grant all consequential benefits along with
arrears/difference of salary with interest and to revise the
scale pay and to give increments to the petitioners;
(E) Pass any such other and/or further orders that may be
thought just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9680/2014 ORDER DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
the present case;
27(E) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of
mandamus of any other appropriate writ, order or directions
to the respondent's to kindly quashed and set aside the
order dated 27.11.2024 here, it is marked and annexed as
ANNEXURE:N to this petition, which was rejection order is
passed by the Respondent No.5 after such a long leaps of
period, here I have also marked and annexed the
Government Resolution dated 3.8.2004, here it is marked as
ANNEXURE:O to this petition.
2. Brief facts of the case as stated in the present
petition are are as under:
2.1 The respondent Nagarpalika invited applications for
the post of Clerks and Peons. It is the case of the
petitioners in this petition that the petitioners have
applied for the said posts. It is submitted that interviews
of the petitioners was also conducted. That after
following due procedure, the petitioner No.1 and
petitioner No.2 were appointed as "Clerk" on 03.06.1989
and 05.04.1989 with the respondent-Nagarpalika.
Thereafter, petitioners filed a Reference being Reference
I.T. No.24 of 1995 before the Industrial Tribunal with a
prayer to make them regular and permanent and to pay
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9680/2014 ORDER DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
them regular pay salary as per norms and other benefits
from the date of appointment. The said reference came
to be allowed and the Tribunal directed the respondent
-Nagarpalika to appoint the petitioners on the post of
Recovery Clerks and to make them permanent w.e.f.
01.01.2004 and to pay them minimum pay scale and
other benefits from 01.01.2004 and it was further ordered
to pay them difference of salary from 01.01.2004.
2.2 It is further the case of the petitioners in this
petition that respondent-Nagarpalika challenged the
aforesaid order of Tribunal by preferring a writ petition
being Special Civil Application No.9833 of 2004 before
this Court. It is the case of the petitioners in this
petition that the said petition came to be dismissed by
this Court vide order dated 13.12.2012 and the order of
Hon'ble Tribunal came to be confirmed. Considering the
weak financial condition of the respondent-Nagarpalika,
the petitioners executed affidavits waiving 50% of arrears
of difference in salary. Respondent-Nagarpalika passed
order for implementing the orders of the Tribunal and
this Hon'ble Court and further ordered for making
payment to the petitioners.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9680/2014 ORDER DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
2.3 It is further the case of the petitioners in this
petition that internal auditor of respondent Nagarpalika
addressed Chief Officer a letter to respondent-Nagarpalika
inter alia fixing the pay scale of the petitioners as
Rs.3050/-. Thereafter the petitioners filed an application
before respondent-Nagarpalika to give them increments
and other benefits. That on 04.03.2013, the respondent-
Nagarpalika informed the petitioner No. 1 that the
Hon'ble Tribunal has only ordered Nagarpalika to put
the petitioners on minimum pay scale and to give them
minimum pay and there is no specific direction from the
Hon'ble Tribunal to give increments to petitioners. It is
further the case of the petitioners in this petition that
the petitioners gave legal advocate notice to respondent-
Nagarpalika and it was requested to treat the workmen
petitioners as permanent on their posts and to fix their
pay scale afresh and to give all the benefits as are
being given to other identically situated co-workers
namely J.R. Vyas and P.H. Gida. Petitioners filed an
application before the respondent-Nagarpalika and
requested to give them due increments. It is further the
case of the petitioners in this petition that respondent-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9680/2014 ORDER DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
Nagarpalika sought an opinion from respondent No.4
with regard to granting of increments to the petitioners.
Petitioners made an application to Chief Officer of
respondent-Nagarpalika and requested to give them
benefits of 6th Pay Commission. Internal Auditor of
respondent- Nagarpalika i.e. respondent No.3 informed
that as per Condition No.7 of order of Regional Director,
the benefits of 6th Pay Commission are available only to
the employees of permanent set-up and as the
appointment of the petitioner is not made in permanent
set-up, the petitioners are not entitled for getting the
th
benefit of 6 Pay Commission. Hence the present petition
has been preferred.
3. Heard Ms. Tejal Shah, learned advocate for the
petitioners, Mr R.R. Trivedi, learned advocate for the
respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Ms. Surbhi Bhati, learned
Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos. 3
to 5 - State.
4.1 Ms. Tejal Shah, learned advocate for the
petitioners has submitted that though the petitioners are
th
entitled to get the benefits of 6 Pay Commission, the
same is not given to them and, therefore, the present
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9680/2014 ORDER DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
th
petition is filed to get 6 Pay Commission along with
arrears and difference of salary with interest. She has
submitted that the petitioners are working from the year
1989 at the post of clerk with the respondent
Nagarpalika. She has further submitted that the
petitioners have applied for the said post and in view of
the interview of the petitioners, which was conducted by
the respondent authority after following due procedure,
the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were appointed as clerks on
03.06.1989 and 05.04.1989 with the respondent-
Nagarpalika. Thereafter, on 06.03.2004, the petitioners
have filed reference being Reference I.T. No.24 of 1995
before the Industrial Tribunal with a prayer to make
them regular and permanent and pay them regular pay
salary as per norms and other benefits from the date of
appointment. The said reference was allowed by the
Tribunal by directing the respondent-Nagarpalika to
appoint the petitioners on the post on of Recovery Clerks
and to make them permanent w.e.f. 01.01.2004 and to
pay them minimum pay scale and other benefits from
01.01.2004. She has further submitted that the
respondent Nagarpalika challenged that order by way of
petition being Special Civil Application No.9833 of 2004
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9680/2014 ORDER DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
before this Court and the same came to be dismissed by
this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 13.12.2012 by
confirming the order of Tribunal.
4.2 She has further submitted that the respondent
Nagarpalika asked the petitioners to execute affidavits on
13.01.2013 waiving 50% of arrears of difference in salary
due to weak financial condition of the respondent
Nagarpalika. She has further submitted that in the
meantime, the respondent Nagarpalika passed order for
implementing the orders of the Tribunal and this Court
and further ordered for making payment to the
petitioners. Accordingly, pay scale of the petitioners is
fixed to Rs.3050/- by the respondent Nagarpalika. She
has further submitted that the petitioners filed an
application before respondent Nagarpalika in March, 2013
to pay the increments. She has further submitted that
on 04.03.2013, the respondent Nagarpalika informed the
petitioner No.1 that the Tribunal has only ordered
Nagarpalika to put the petitioners on minimum pay scale
and to give them minimum pay and there is no specific
direction from the Tribunal to give increments to the
petitioners. She has further submitted that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9680/2014 ORDER DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
petitioners gave legal advocate notice to respondent
Nagarpalika through their advocate for fixation of pay
scale afresh and to give all the benefits as are being
given to other identically situated co-workers namely J.R.
Vyas and P.H. Gida. She has further submitted that
the petitioners have filed an application before the
respondent Nagarpalika again on 31.01.2014 and
requested to give them due increments. In February,
2013, the respondent Nagarpalika sought an opinion from
respondent No.4 with regard to granting of increments to
the petitioners. She has further submitted that in
February, 2014, the Internal Auditor of respondent
Nagarpalika i.e. respondent No.3 informed that as per
Condition No.7 of order of Regional Director, the benefits
th
of 6 Pay Commission are available only to the
employees of permanent set-up and as the appointments
of the petitioners are not made in permanent set-up, the
th
petitioners are not entitled for getting the benefit of 6
Pay Commission. She has relied on order dated
12.09.2011 passed by the Regional Director, Municipality.
4.3 She has further submitted that there are many
vacant posts of clerks and peons on sanctioned
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9680/2014 ORDER DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
permanent set-up, on which the petitioners may be
absorbed and, therefore, she has submitted that she has
filed the present petition to absorb the petitioners in
permanent set up. Hence, she has prayed to allow the
present petition.
5.1 Per contra, Mr R.R. Trivedi, learned advocate for
the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has opposed the
submissions made at the bar by learned advocate for the
petitioners and has contended that internal auditor of
the Municipality informed that as per the condition No.
7 of the order of Regional Director of Municipality
th
benefit of 6 Pay Commission is available only to the
employees who are appointed in permanent set up of the
Municipality and he has submitted that the petitioners
are not appointed in permanent set up and, therefore,
th
the benefits of 6 Pay Commission cannot be extended to
them. He has further submitted that regarding contention
about the Reference, which is allowed by the Industrial
Tribunal, whereby the Tribunal has held that the
petitioners are entitled for only minimum salary and the
order of said reference is not challenged by the petitioner
and they have accepted the same, but municipality has
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9680/2014 ORDER DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
challenged the same before this Court by way of Special
Civil Application No.9833 of 2004, whereby this Court
has observed that since the Tribunal has granted
minimum pay scale, therefore, the High Court will not
interfere in the said order of Tribunal. Hence, as per
th
said order, it cannot be said that benefits of 6 Pay
Commission can be extended to the petitioners.
5.2 He has further submitted that the Tribunal has
granted them minimum wages/pay scale and has not
passed any order to pay salary at par with the
permanent employees and, therefore, he has submitted
that the petitioners are not entitled to get any benefits
th
of 6 Pay Commission. He has further submitted that
the case of the petitioners cannot equate co-workers
namely J.R. Vyas and P.H. Gida. There is vast difference
between relief granted to those persons and petitioners.
He has further submitted that the respondent
Municipality has correctly interpreted the order of the
Tribunal. The Tribunal has in clear terms stated that
the petitioners are entitled only for minimum pay scale
and those observations are reiterated by this Court also.
He has further submitted that the internal auditor of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9680/2014 ORDER DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
the Municipality has raised objection on the basis of the
order of the Director of Municipality and unless Director
th
of Municipality grants permission benefits of 6 Pay
Commission, the same cannot be granted because for the
same purpose also, necessary grant is also required to be
released by the concerned authority and, therefore, since
th
petitioners are not entitled for benefits of 6 Pay
Commission and, therefore, the present petition deserves
to be dismissed.
5.3 He has further submitted that for the purpose of
absorption of the petitioners on empty posts also, the
orders are required to be passed by Director of
Municipalities and Municipality on its own is not entitled
to absorb petitioners on vacant posts. Not only this, if
any posts are vacant then Municipality is supposed to
fill it up by regular employment after following
recruitment Rules. He has further submitted that as per
the order passed by this Court, additional affidavit is
also filed, last regular recruitment on the post of clerk
was undertaken by the municipality in year 1995. He
has further submitted that lastly on 10.11.2022, the
Municipality has sent proposal to Regional Commissioner
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9680/2014 ORDER DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
to grant permission to fill up 10 post of clerks-cum-
sanitary inspector, Typist, etc.
5.4 He has submitted that considering this aspect and
considering the materials available on record, it
transpires that the petitioners were appointed as daily
wager for fixed period of 3 months on contractual basis
in the year 1989. He has further submitted that if the
Resolution dated 05.06.1989 of Staff Selection Committee
is perused, whereby it specifically refers to daily wager
on contract basis. Nowhere it is for the purpose of
regular recruitment. He has further submitted that in
the case of co-workers referred in the petition, the
Industrial Tribunal has given awards and it has been
implemented by the Municipality. In those cases, the
Industrial Tribunal has specifically granted regular pay
scale i.e. regularization of services with all consequential
benefits. While in the case of petitioner only minimum of
regular pay scale is granted and, therefore, the other
awards were altogether different award and those
workmen were appointed in octroi branch as naka clerk
and, therefore, the case of the present petitioners cannot
be equated with those cases. In view of the above, he
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9680/2014 ORDER DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
has prayed to dismiss the present petition.
6. Ms. Surbhi Bhati, learned Assistant Government
Pleader for the respondent Nos.3 to 5 - State has
supported the contentions raised by Mr. R.R. Trivedi,
learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and
has further indicated that pursuant to the proposal
received from the respondent Municipality, the proposal
was forwarded to the Commissioner of Municipality by
the Regional Commissioner of Municipality for
regularization of certain posts and also for consideration
of the case of the present petitioners in appropriate
manner. The said communication is made in the month
of September, 2024, which was rejected by the Director
of Municipality by order dated 27.11.2024. The said fact
is also brought on record by seeking amendment in the
prayer by the petitioners and accordingly, prayers were
also amended by the petitioners and, therefore, she has
submitted that the authorities have not considered the
proposal received from the respondent Municipality after
considering all the relevant aspects regarding the
necessity of set up, the procedure of the recruitment of
such employees, financial burden, etc. and, therefore, she
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9680/2014 ORDER DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
has submitted that no interference is required to be
called for as no relief can be granted to the present
petitioners considering the contentions raised by her as
well as contentions raised by Mr R.R. Trivedi, learned
advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
7.1 I have considered the rival submissions made at the
bar by the respective parties. It transpires that the
petitioners were appointed in the year 1989. It is not in
dispute that the petitioners have been working with the
Municipality in the year 1989 as a clerk, but a reference
has been filed before the Industrial Tribunal, whereby
the Tribunal has allowed that reference by granting the
benefits to the petitioners from 01.01.2004 and has
directed to grant minimum pay scale to the present
petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners have not
challenged that order and now, it is case of the
petitioners that they are serving since the year 1989.
That order has been challenged by the respondent-
Municipality before this Court by way of Special Civil
Application No.9833 of 2004, whereby also, this Hon'ble
Court while dismissing the petition of respondent
Municipality on 13.12.2012 has observed in paragraph 2.1
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9680/2014 ORDER DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
as under:
"2.1. The petitioner - Nagarpalika resisted the reference by
filing writing statement. The Tribunal, vide judgment and
order dated 6.3.2004, directed the petitioner-Nagarpalika to
appoint the respondentsworkmen, on the post of Recovery
Clerk from 1.1.2004 and pay all benefits available to them
as also the arrears for the difference in pay scale from
1.1.2004. Hence, this petition."
7.2 Considering the same and considering the fact that
thereafter, the proposal is also forwarded to the Director
of Municipality, it cannot be said that the respondent
authority has committed any error in not granting the
th
benefits of 6 Pay Commission to the present petitioners
after considering the case of other co-workers namely
J.R. Vyas and P.H. Gida, whose cased were considered
by this Court by directing the municipality to regularize
the service of those employees and, therefore, the facts of
those cases are different from the facts of the present
case whereby this Court has not considered the case of
the petitioners for regularization of service or for giving
benefit from their initial appointment in the year 1989.
In fact, the Tribunal has considered the case of the
petitioners for minimum pay scale from 01.01.2004 and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9680/2014 ORDER DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
this Court has also considered that aspect while
dismissing the petition filed by the respondent
Municipality and, therefore, that direction has become
final. Therefore, I found that there is no impropriety or
th
infirmity in not granting the benefit of 6 Pay
Commission to the present petitioners by the respondent
namely Municipality as well as State Government in the
facts and circumstances of the present case, more
particularly, considering the order passed by the learned
Industrial Tribunal, which was confirmed by this Court.
In overall fact of the case, I found no merit in the
present petition and, therefore, the present petition is
required to be dismissed.
7.3 However considering the fact that petitioners have
been rendering their services since the year 1989, it is
open for the petitioners to make necessary fresh
representation before the respondent authority more
particularly Municipality as well as State Government to
consider their case sympathetically to grant all the
benefits, which are given to the permanent employees
though the petitioners were initially appointed as daily
wager, however, considering the length of service, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9680/2014 ORDER DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
Municipal Authority may consider the case of the
petitioners appropriately but in accordance with law, if it
is permissible and the State Government may also look
into the matter and if permissible, consider the case of
the petitioners appropriately if such proposal is received
from the Municipality.
8. With the above observations, the present petition is
found meritless and hence, the present petition is
required to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed
accordingly with no order as to costs.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)
DIWAKAR SHUKLA
