Gujarat High Court
Harish Popatlal Prajapati vs Union Of India on 9 July, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/24769/2005 ORDER DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 24769 of 2005
================================================================
HARISH POPATLAL PRAJAPATI
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR NS SHEVADE(845) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
ADVOCATE NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS VYOMA K JHAVERI(6386) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Date : 09/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. Today, when the matter was heard, the learned advocates for the
respective parties did not cite any judgment rendered by the Supreme
Court on the issue raised in the present writ petition, though the time was
sought on the last occasion. The petitioner's case hinges on the circular
dated 01.06.2001 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of
Expenditure. The petitioner argued before the Central Administrative
Tribunal ("the Tribunal" for short) that he was entitled to the pay-scale
benefits, as envisaged in the aforesaid circular after completing 5, 8, and
6 years of service.
2. Mr. N.S.Shevade, learned advocate for the petitioner, highlighted
the service details of the petitioner. He submitted that the Tribunal erred
in passing the common impugned order in Original Applications No.1 of
2003 and No.2 of 2003, wherein the petitioner claimed the applicability
of the circular dated 01.06.2001. Both the matters were filed by the
petitioner i.e. Original Application No.1 of 2003 was filed against the
action of the respondent authorities in not implementing O.M. dated
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/24769/2005 ORDER DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
01.06.2001 of Ministry of Finance, as communicated vide letter dated
14.03.2002, whereas Original Application No.2 of 2003 was filed
challenging the order dated 23.12.2002 read with order dated 30.12.2002
re-fixing the pay of the the petitioner. The petitioner sought for quashing
of the letters, orders and also asked for implementation of the order dated
01.06.2001. It was submitted that the petitioner was appointed on
01.07.1968 and, considering his service from that date, the benefits of the
circular should be extended to him.
3. It is submitted that the Tribunal's observation that the petitioner
lacked the requisite qualification in 1981, when he was placed in the
higher grade of Draftsman on 30.06.1980, is incorrect, since at that
relevant time, the petitioner was SSC-passed and ITI-qualified, and
subsequently, when the resolution dated 19.10.1994, was issued, the State
Government eliminated the qualification requirement, declaring that all
Draftsmen would be entitled to the pay-scale after completing the
requisite years of service as of 01.01.1996. Learned advocate further
submitted that a new circular was issued on 01.06.2001 following
demands by Draftsmen serving outside the Central Public Works
Department ("CPWD") to extend the benefits of 5 th Central Pay
Commission. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to these benefits, and
the Tribunal erred in rejecting O.A. No.1 of 2003. Thus, it is urged that
the Tribunal's judgment and order be set aside.
4. Per Contra, Ms.Vyoma K. Jhaveri, learned advocate for
respondent No. 1, submitted that the Tribunal's judgment and order
should not be interfered with. She has relied on the order dated
03.01.2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Gujarat
Bench, to support her submissions. Learned advocate further submitted
that, as per the aforesaid decision, the benefit of the revised pay-scale at
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/24769/2005 ORDER DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
par with CPWD could only be extended under the Circular dated
01.06.2001 to the Draftsmen who did not receive benefits under the
circular issued by the Ministry of Finance on 19.10.1994. She has pointed
out that by the circular dated 19.10.1994, the benefit of revised pay-scales
to was extended to the petitioner. It is submitted that when the circular
dated 01.06.2001 was issued, the Ministry of Finance was aware of the
earlier circular, and only those Draftsmen who fulfilled the criteria and
had not received benefits under the circular dated 19.10.1994 were
granted the revised pay-scale under 5th Central Pay Commission.
Accordingly, a notice was issued to the petitioner on 23.05.2002, calling
upon him to explain why his pay-scale should not be revised. After
hearing the petitioner, by order dated 23.12.2002, it was decided that the
pay-scale was erroneously granted, and recovery was initiated. However,
the Tribunal had set aside the action of recovery, which the Department
had challenged, but the Department lost up to the Supreme Court. Thus, it
is urged that the petitioner is not entitled to the pay-scale as per the
circular dated 01.06.2001, and the present petition should not be
entertained.
5. We have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. The
facts of the case are not suitably recorded by the Tribunal in the order.
The same are also not effectively presented before us, and there appears
to be muddle with regard to the fixation of pay of the petitioner. We have
tried to gather the same from the documents on record.
6. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner was possessing SSC
with ITI Certificate, and looking to his educational qualification, he was
recruited in lower grade, Draftsman in the pay scale of Rs.260-430. For
higher grade Draftsman the pay scale was of Rs.330-560. It appears that
thereafter, on the recommendation of the DPC, he was placed in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/24769/2005 ORDER DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
higher grade w.e.f. 01.09.1981. He filed proceedings before the Tribunal
in T.A. No.118 of 1986, and in view of the order dated 02.03.1987 passed
by the CAT, he was conferred the Draftsman (Higher Grade) having pay
scale of Rs.330-560 with effect from 30.06.1980.
7. It appears that, the Department issued OM dated 16.09.1985
revising the pay scale of Draftsman, stipulating that the Draftsman
holding Diploma Certificate and having not less than two years'
experience including contractual training of six months were to be placed
in the new scale of Rs.330-560. Correspondingly, the directly recruited
Draftsmen, after getting the Diploma and one year experience were to be
placed in the revised pay scale of Rs.425-700 from Rs.330-560. It appears
that the petitioner, through mistake, was conferred the revised pay scale
of Rs.425-700 w.e.f. 13.05.1982 notionally and actually from 01.11.1983
vide order dated 21.11.1985, though he did not possess the requisite
qualification. He was further conferred the revised pay scale of Rs.1400-
2300 on completion of 5 years of service. The defect came to the notice
of the Department while examining the service details at the time of
extending the benefit under Circular dated 01.06.2001. Accordingly, after
hearing him the Department passed the order rectifying the pay scales. He
was extended the benefit of OM dated 19.10.1994, and was placed in the
pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 w.e.f. 01.01.1996.
8. In this backdrop, learned advocate Mr.Shevde has fairly admitted
that when the revised pay scale of Rs.425-700 Draftsman was conferred
to the petitioner, he was not holding the requisite qualification. Thus, we
do not find fault in the action of respondents in rectifying the pay-scale
of Rs.425-700 notionally w.e.f. 13.05.1982 and actually w.e.f.
01.11.1983. The petitioner was SSC-passed and ITI-qualified at the
relevant time, and was not holding the qualification of Diploma. Under
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/24769/2005 ORDER DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
the 1984 circular dated 14.03.1984, the requisite qualification for the
higher pay-scale was two years of experience with six months of training
in a Diploma. Subsequently, the Ministry of Finance issued O.M. dated
19.10.1994, conferring the revised pay-scale of Rs.550-Rs.750 to those
Draftsmen, like the petitioner, who were not having the requisite
qualifications, the same has been extended to the petitioner. Later, the
Draftsmen and other staff highlighted an anomalous situation, demanding
that the revised pay-scale recommended by 5th Central Pay Commission
be extended to Draftsmen in all Central Government offices. After
considering the demand, the Finance Department determined that
Draftsmen in departments other than CPWD, who did not possess the
prescribed qualifications, were entitled to the revised pay-scale after
completing 5, 8, and 6 years of service. Notably, the Ministry of Finance
clarified that those who had received benefits under the O.M. dated
19.10.1994 were excluded from the ambit of Circular dated 01.06.2001.
Thus, the petitioner, who had received the benefit of pay scale of the
O.M. dated 19.10.1994, is not entitled to the revised pay-scale under the
Circular dated 01.06.2001.
9. Ms.Vyoma K. Jhaveri, learned advocate for respondent No. 1,
fairly pointed out the order dated 08.02.2017 passed in Special Civil
Application No.11374 of 2007, filed by the respondent - Department,
challenging only the recovery directed due to the re-fixation of pay
against the petitioner. She submitted that, as per the aforesaid order, the
Coordinate Bench directed the deposit of the differential amount of
recovery before the Registry of this Court, and the Department complied.
It is urged that this amount be refunded to the petitioner. Accordingly, the
Registry is directed to refund the amount deposited under the order dated
08.02.2017 passed in Special Civil Application No.11374 of 2007 to the
petitioner, with accrued interest, if any, after due verification.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/24769/2005 ORDER DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
10. Under these circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the
judgment and order passed by the Tribunal. The present petition is
rejected and disposed of accordingly.
Sd/- .
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
Sd/- .
(R. T. VACHHANI, J)
MVP/2
