Gujarat High Court
Ranchhodbhai S/O Devshibhai Ardeshna vs State Of Gujarat on 10 July, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1783/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1783 of 2024
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7368 of 2018
==========================================================
RANCHHODBHAI S/O DEVSHIBHAI ARDESHNA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SHALIN MEHTA SENIOR COUNSEL WITH MR ANAND B GOGIA(5849)
for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR. GAURAV A. GOGIA(14128) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS SHRUTI DHRUVE AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
MR AR THACKER(888) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Date : 10/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
The present appeal is directed against the oral judgment dated
19.07.2024 passed in Special Civil Application No.7368 of 2018
dismissing the petition of the appellant seeking revision of pension upon
a revision of salary in the post of Registrar.
2. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Shalin Mehta assisted with Mr.Gogia
for the appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge has
committed error in observing that the recommendation of pay
commission stands on a completely different footing than a special
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1783/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
revision of pay-scale without corresponding revision of pension, since the
revision in the pay scale of Registrar is Rs 37400-67000, is treated as part
of 6th Pay Commission by the State government in its GRs. He has
submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated and
held that the appellant was entitled to revision in pension in pay scale of
Rs 37400-67000 both under the GR dated 16.05.2015 as well as under
6th Pay Commission and therefore Respondent No.2 had not committed
any error in sanctioning his revised pension in pay scale of Rs 37400-
67000. He has submitted that the instant case of the appellant is not case
of claim of revision in pension of individual nature but it relates to entire
category of Registrars of the Universities throughout the state. He has
further submitted that the learned Single judge has failed to consider the
matter in its correct perspective and has upheld the arbitrary and illegal
decision of the Respondent authorities. He has further submitted that the
decisions under challenge, taken by the respondents, are arbitrary and
violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the
appellant is discriminated and treated differently from other similarly
situated retired employees in the similar type of issue. In the decision of
the respondents denied the revised pension to the appellant is not in
consonance with Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
2.1 Learned Senior Counsel Mr.Mehta has submitted that the learned
Single Judge has failed to consider that Government of Gujarat, at later
point of time, has treated the pay scale of Rs 37400-67000 of Registrar
under 6th Pay Commission; which is clearly mentioned in GR dated
23.08.2017 and simultaneously the appellant also is entitled to revision in
pension on bass of GR dated 2015 which was as an result of conscious
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1783/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
decision of government, not for one post of Saurashtra University but an
general decision is taken for the category of "Registrars" of all the
Government Universities in the State and, therefore, the appellant is
entitled to revision in pension in the pay scale of Rs 37400-67,000 as
claimed by the appellant.
2.2 Learned Senior Counsel Mr.Mehta has submitted that the learned
Single Judge has committed serious and grave legal error in
differentiating the case of Mr.S.K. Patel and did not appreciate that the
case of the appellant is similar to the case of Mr.S.K Patel and that there
is no legal reason to differentiate the case of the appellant from the case
of Mr.S.K Patel, as in both the cases they were retired employees of the
University and were not holding master degree. It is contended that the
learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that the educational
qualification, came to be changed due to the guidelines of the UGC. He
has further submitted that the pay scale was revised in terms of the State
level policy and due to the recommendations of 6th Pay Commission
accepted by the State Government and this is further clear from the GR
dated 23.08.2017. He has pointed out the Schedule-A where at Sr. No. 1,
the post of Registrar is mentioned in column no. 8 the pay scale of the
post of Registrar is shown as Rs. 37400-67000. In the column no. 11, the
revised pay scale of the post of Registrar under 7th pay commission is
shown as Rs, 1,44,200/-. He has further submitted that this schedule
relates exclusively to Saurashtra University Staff Set-up and this GR has
come into effect even prior to deciding the new Recruitment Rules, which
was the requirement under the GR dated 16.05.2015.
2.3 It is contended that in case the appellant is denied the revision in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1783/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
pension in revised pay scale for the post of Registrar of Rs.37,400-
67,000/- with grade pay Rs.10,000/-, the appellant / pensioner shall be
deprived of revision in pension in terms of revision of pay scale not only
in terms of 6th pay commission but also shall be deprived of revision in
pension permanently, more particularly, under 7th Pay Commission on
scale-to-scale basis. It is submitted that though in the instant case, the
appellant's claim for revision in pension is on basis of GR dated
16.05.2015, whereas under GR dated 23.08.2017 the appellant is entitled
to revision in pension in revised pay sale of Registrar of Rs 37,400-
67,000/- with Grade Pay of Rs.10,000/- w.e.f. 01.01.2006 which is the
effective date of the revised pay scales under the 6th pay commission.
3. Per contra, learned AGP Ms.Shruti Dhruve, appearing for the
respondent - State, has pointed out the communication dated 16.07.2024
written by the Treasury Officer to the Registrar of Saurashtra University,
pointing out that the appellant has been conferred the Revision of Pay
Commission in the year 1998, 2009 and ROP, 2016. This document has
not been denied by the present appellant. Moreover, learned AGP
Ms.Dhruve has also pointed out the order dated 29.04.2025 of the
respondent - University wherein it is categorically stated that the
appellant was given the additional charge of the officiating Registrar.
4. Learned Advocate Mr.Thacker appearing for the respondent No.4 -
University has also pointed out the averments made in the affidavit-in-
reply, more particularly, paragraph No.4, wherein the details of the entire
service of the present appellant have been pointed out.
5. We have considered the rival submissions. In the writ petition, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1783/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
appellant - original appellant had prayed for the directions to the
respondents to implement the impugned communication dated
08/11.09.2015. It is also prayed that communications dated 08.08.2022
and 10.08.2022 may be set aside.
6. It appears that after the communication dated 08/11.08.2015 was
passed, the entire case of the appellant for conferring the revision of pays
of 2009 was considered and ultimately, it was opined that the appellant
was not entitled to the same and he has already been conferred the
appropriate pay-scale and such pay-scale is also revised and the benefits
of three Revision of Pays Commission is already extended, as mentioned
herein above. Learned Single Judge, after threadbare examination of the
documentary evidence and various orders and after considering Rule
80(2)(a) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002, alongwith
the Government Resolution dated 13.04.2009 and 15.10.2016 has rejected
the writ petition. The Learned Single Judge has held in paragraph Nos.24
and 26 thus:
"24. The observations of this Court on that count get further support from the fact
that the Government Resolution dated 13.04.2009 and 15.10.2016, whereby the State
Government had revised the pension /family pension upon recommendations of 6th
and 7th Central Pay Commission respectively. Both the Resolutions start with the
heading that the order would apply to all pensioners / family pensioners under the
Pension Rules as amended from time to time. Furthermore, both the Resolutions inter
alia envisage that the revised pension shall not be less than 50% of the pay in the pay
band + Grade Pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay-scale from which the
appellant had retired i.e. revision as per the 6th Pay Commission and shall not be
lower than 50% of the minimum pay in the level of pay matrix corresponding to the
pre-revised pay-scale of the post from which the appellant had retired. In other
words, both the Resolutions envisage that the pension shall not be below 50% of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1783/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
minimum pay as available after the revision to the post from which the appellant had
retired albeit calculated as per pay band + Grade Pay or pay matrix as the case may
be. Thus, to this Court, it would appear that the proviso is only a reiteration of the
conditions enumerated by the State, while revising pension as per the
recommendations of the Pay Commission. To this Court, neither the proviso to Rule
80(2)(a) of the Pension Rules nor the clauses as mentioned in the Government
Resolutions dated 13.04.2009 and 15.10.2016 would in any way envisage that even
upon a special revision of pay-scale to a post, without any corresponding revision in
pension envisaged, a person retired on the post in question, would be able to claim
that he would be entitled for revision of pension. The above observations to this Court
effectively deals with the arguments of learned advocate for the appellant as regards
the proviso to Rule 80(2)(a) of the Pension Rules as well as with regard to the clauses
in Resolutions dated 13.04.2009 and 15.10.2016.
xxx xxx xxx
26. As observed hereinabove, the revision of pension on the basis of
recommendations of Pay Commission stands on a completely different footing than a
special revision of pay-scale without corresponding revision of pension. As noted
hereinabove, not less than 50% Rule, which was relied upon by the learned advocate
for the petitioner, would apply on all fours to the case of Mr. S.K. Patel since the
revision was on basis of recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission. Moreover,
nothing has been shown to this Court as to whether there was any condition either
general or specific in the Resolution, whereby the recommendations of the 6th Pay
Commission as regards the revision of pension, was adopted by the State
Government, which inter alia requires that a pensioner is also required to hold
certain qualifications as prescribed for the post in question for being entitled for
revision of pension."
7. It is not in dispute that when the appellant retired, he was holding
the charge of Registrar on 29.04.1995 and his pay-scale was fixed at
Rs.4,575/- per month and accordingly, his pension was fixed considering
his basic pay of Rs.4,575/- which was approved by the Director of
Pension. Thereafter, the said pay-scales were revised by the Resolution
dated 16.05.2015 for the post of Registrar issued by the Education
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1783/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
Department, State of Gujarat in all the Universities from Rs.15,600-
39,100 in the Grade Pay of Rs.7,600/- to Rs.37,400-67000 Grade Pay of
Rs.10,000/-.
8. On 13.02.2013, the Selection Committee of the University decided
that the post of Registrar is required to be filled-in as per the UGC norms
and according to the new Rules of Recruitment, the incumbent of such
post is required to possess the minimum qualification of Master's Degree
with at least 55% of marks or its equivalent grade. Thus, the appellant
retired in the year 1996, holding the post of Registrar in an officiating
capacity and was never appointed as a regular Registrar in view of the
subsequent Rules, which came into force on 13.02.2013.
9. The entire case of the appellant hinges on the interpretation of the
Government Resolution dated 16.05.2015 passed by the Education
Department, Government of Gujarat. A perusal of the said resolution
reveals that it is made applicable to the Registrar of the Universities and
in the present case, the order dated 29.03.1995 issued by the University
unquestionably reveals that the appellant was given the additional charge
of the Registrar. There is no order produced by the appellant to show that
he was actually appointed as Registrar and hence, the Resolution dated
16.05.2015 will not be apply in his case. Moreover, the intention of the
Resolution dated 16.05.2015 is to grant the pay-scales, as mentioned
herein above, which is made applicable to the Registrar who was holding
the post on the time of promulgation of this resolution. The appellant
retired from the service in the year 1996 and hence, he cannot be granted
the benefits of the Resolution dated 16.05.2015. Furthermore, there are
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1783/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
two conditions which are required to be fulfilled before applying the
resolution dated 16.05.2015. The first condition is that the incumbent
should be in service and should have been appointed as Registrar on the
date of issuance of the said resolution and, second, that he should fulfill
the qualification of a Registrar as per the rules, which are applicable on
the date of issuance of the present resolution. Unquestionably, the
appellant does not fulfill the educational qualification, which was meant
to be filled-in on the post of Registrar, i.e. A Master's degree with at least
55% of the marks or its equivalent grade of B in the UGC Seven point
scale. The appellant was having educational qualification of BA and
B.Com.
10. The affidavit-in-reply is filed by the respondent No.2 where-from it
appears that respondent No.3 vide communication dated 2.9.2015 raised
query as to whether the appellant fulfills the conditions mentioned in the
said resolution dated 16.5.2015. Such communication is produced by the
appellant at Annexure-G, pursuant to which, the respondent No.2 called
upon the Respondent No. 4 university to clarify with regards to the
fulfillment of conditions of the said resolution. Such clarification came
from the respondent university vide communication dated 9.12.2015,
wherein, the University clarified that the resolution dated 16.5.2015
passed by the Education Department, Government of Gujarat would be
applicable to the existing Registrar. The policy revolving around grant of
benefits of revised pay structure propounded vide resolution dated
16.5.2015 came to be modified vide Resolution dated 18.8.2017 passed
by the Education Department, Government of Gujarat which was further
clarified vide circular dated 22.11.2018 passed by the said department.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1783/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
The said policy decisions provide that the post of Registrar shall be filled
in accordance with the norms and eligibility criteria set by the University
Grants Commission ('UGC').
11. The respondent-State Government in its affidavit-in-reply has
categorically clarified that the appellant cannot be granted any benefit
arising from the communication dated 09/11.08.2015 more particularly,
the resolution dated 16.05.2015 referred therein, applies to the Registrar
who is holding the post and not to those persons, who are given the
charge of Registrars. Such a communication cannot give right to the
appellant to claim the pay-scale de hors the rules and the qualifications,
which are meant for the post of Registrar. The State Government has also
in their affidavit distinguished the cases of the other employees, on which
the reliance is placed by the present appellant more particularly, in case
of Mr. SK Patel. The appellant has placed reliance on the Resolution
dated 31.10.2010 in case of one Mr.S K Patel, who was extended the
benefit by the Education Department, Government of Gujarat. However,
it is not in dispute that Mr.Patel was working as a Director of Physical
Education Department which is not the equivalent post of Registrar and
the Resolution dated 31.10.2010 passed by the Education Department,
was not considered as a teaching post. It appears that by the aforesaid
Resolution dated 31.10.2010, the post of Director of Physical Education
was considered as a non-teaching staff and hence, they were not
extended the benefit of revision of pay. However, thereafter, the State
Government had taken a conscious decision vide resolution dated
31.10.2010 to consider this post as a teaching staff to extend the pay-scale
as per the UGC guidelines. In such circumstances, the benefit was
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1783/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
extended to Mr. SK Patel. Thus, there is a clear distinction between the
post, which was held by Mr.SK Patel and the circumstances in which he
was granted the benefit of pay-scale. The same cannot be applied in the
facts of the present case as the appellant has never held the post of
Registrar; but he was in-charge of the said post. To be noted further that
even the pension order dated 20.08.2004 refers to the appellant as a
Deputy Registrar and not as the Registrar of the University.
12. Hence, we are in complete agreement with the reasoning recorded
by the learned Single Judge. The captioned LPA fails and is accordingly
dismissed.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
(R. T. VACHHANI, J)
sompura / 51
