State Of Gujarat vs H P Prajapati
2025 Latest Caselaw 809 Guj

Gujarat High Court

State Of Gujarat vs H P Prajapati on 11 July, 2025

                                                                                                                NEUTRAL CITATION




                             C/SCA/343/2020                                     ORDER DATED: 11/07/2025

                                                                                                                undefined




                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                      R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 343 of 2020

                      ==========================================================
                                                    STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
                                                             Versus
                                                      H P PRAJAPATI & ANR.
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MR HENIL SHAH, AGP for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
                      MR DIPAN DESAI(2481) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                      NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
                      ==========================================================

                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT

                                                           Date : 11/07/2025

                                                             ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned AGP - Mr. Henil Shah for petitioners and Learned advocate Mr. Dipan Desai for Respondent no. 1.

2. In the present petition, the petitioner-state has challenged the order passed by the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal, Ahmedabad dated 13.11.2018 in Appeal no. 411 of 2003. The Tribunal has by way of impugned judgment, allowed the appeal of the respondent no.1 and has set aside the order dated 24.09.2003 passed by the Collector, Ahmedabad and the communication dated 28.05.2003 passed by the State Government and has restored the order dated 05.12.2001 of the Collector granting higher pay scale to the respondent no. 1 in the Cadre of Mamlatdar having the pay scale of Rs. 6500-200-10500.

3. The learned AGP Mr. Shah submitted that the order passed by the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/343/2020 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2025

undefined

Tribunal is bad and a gross error has been committed by the Tribunal. He first referred to the Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994 and its relevant paragraph no. 3. It is submitted that the respondent no. 1 was appointed as clerk cum typist on 19.02.1977. For the period from 26.05.1978 to 30.06.1978 the respondent no. 1 was declared surplus and such period was considered as leave without pay. Thereafter the respondent no. 1 was promoted as Deputy Mamlatdar on 18.12.1986 and worked on the promotional post till 31.12.1988. However, respondent no. 1 was reverted to the post of Clerk cum typist on 31.12.1988 and once again was promoted as Deputy Mamlatdar on 13.01.1989. He submitted that earlier promotion from 1986 to 1988 was only ad-hoc promotion whereas regular promotion was granted only on 13.01.1989. Learned AGP Mr. Shah submitted that the respondent no.1 is entitled to first higher pay scale on completion of 9 years of service as clerk cum typist and since respondent no. 1 was appointed on 19.02.1977, on completion of 9 years, he would be entitled to first higher pay scale on 01.03.1986.

4. Learned AGP Mr. Shah, relying upon the reply filed by the petitioner-State before the Tribunal, which is at page no. 46 of the petition submitted that the respondent no. 1 was granted higher pay scale for the post of Mamlatdar with effect from 31.08.1998 vide order dated 05.12.2001 passed by the Collector. However, the said order was not approved by the State Government vide

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/343/2020 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2025

undefined

communication dated 28.05.2003 and therefore, consequently, the Collector passed the order dated 24.09.2003, cancelling the order dated 05.12.2001 of granting higher pay scale. Learned AGP Mr. Shah submitted that the respondent no.1 was not entitled to higher pay scale in the cadre of Mamlatdar, however, he would be entitled to the higher pay scale in the cadre of Deputy Mamlatdar since he had worked for 9 years in the cadre of Clerk cum typist and therefore on completion of 9 years from 19.02.1977, he would be entitled to first higher pay scale.

5. Learned AGP Mr. Shah further submitted that once respondent no. 1 gets first higher pay scale on completion of 9 years in the cadre of Deputy Mamlatdar, he would be entitled to second higher pay scale on completion of 18 years only, as per the Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994 and therefore, the respondent no.1 would not be entitled to first higher pay scale in the cadre of Mamlatdar. Learned AGP Mr. Shah therefore, contented that the order passed by the Tribunal deserves to be interfered with. Learned AGP relied upon the para wise remarks filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal and contended that the same has not been properly considered or appreciated by the Tribunal.

6. The petition is opposed by learned advocate Mr Dipan Desai appearing for Respondent no. 1. Learned advocate Mr. Desai would submit that respondent no. 1 was appointed as clerk cum

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/343/2020 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2025

undefined

typist on 19.02.1977 and though he has worked for a period of 33 years and 6 months and has retired on reaching the age of superannuation way back in the year 2010, till date the respondent no.1 has not been granted even one higher pay scale and during his entire service career, only one promotion has been granted to the respondent no. 1 from the post of Clerk cum typist to the post of Deputy Mamlatdar.

7. Mr. Desai referring to the facts of the case pointed out that the respondent no. 1 after being appointed as Clerk cum Typist on 19.02.1977, was granted ad-hoc promotion to the post of Deputy Mamlatdar on 18.12.1986 and worked on the promotional post till 31.12.1988. Thereafter he was reverted to the post of clerk cum typist on 31.12.1988 and thereafter granted regular promotion on 13.01.1989. Mr. Desai submitted that the respondent no.1 worked as Deputy Mamlatdar till he attained the age of superannuation.

8. It is submitted by Mr. Desai that the respondent no. 1 passed HRQE exam (departmental exam) on 31.08.1998 and therefore having worked for 9 years on the post of Deputy Mamlatdar and having passed departmental exam, the respondent no. 1 was entitled to first higher pay scale of the post of Mamlatdar on completion of 9 years and on passing of the departmental exam. Therefore, Mr. Desai submitted that the Collector was perfectly justified in granting the first higher pay scale of the post of Mamlatdar from 31.08.1998 vide

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/343/2020 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2025

undefined

the order dated 05.12.2001. Mr. Desai submitted that the Tribunal has properly considered each and every aspect and has rightly interpreted and followed the Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994. Mr. Desai further submitted that the Tribunal has given cogent and convincing reasons and hence the order of the Tribunal is just and proper and does not deserve to be interfered with.

9. Mr. Desai relied upon the judgment and order passed by Coordinate bench of this Court in Special Civil Application no. 19691 of 2006 dated 15.09.2006 and submitted that the observations and findings of the said judgment squarely apply to the facts of the present case. Therefore, he requested the court not to entertain the petition.

10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned AGP Mr. Henil Shah and Mr Dipan Desai appearing on behalf of respondent no.1 and have perused the order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has examined the matter on basis of undisputed facts between the parties which are as under:

(i) The petitioner was appointed as Clerk cum typist on 19.02.1977

(ii) He was granted ad-hoc promotion to the post of Deputy Mamlatdar from 18.12.1986 to 31.12.1988.

(iii) On 31.12.1988, the petitioner was reverted back to the post of Clerk cum typist.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/343/2020 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2025

undefined

(iv) The petitioner was granted regular promotion to the post of Deputy Mamlatdar on 13.01.1989.

(v) The petitioner passed the HRQE examination (departmental examination) on 31.08.1998

(vi) The Collector, vide its order dated 05.12.2001, granted higher pay scale of the cadre of Mamlatdar with effect from 31.08.1998.

(vii) The State Government, vide its communication dated 28.05.2003 did not approve the order of the Collector dated 05.12.2001 granting higher pay scale.

(viii) The Collector, therefore, vide its order dated 24.09.2003, rejected the order of grant of higher pay scale to the petitioner.

(ix) The petitioner preferred Appeal no. 411 of 2003 against the aforementioned orders before the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal.

(x) The Tribunal, vide order dated 13.11.2018 allowed the Appeal preferred by respondent no.1 and thereby set aside the order dated 24.09.2003 and restored the order of granting higher pay scale of the Collector dated 05.12.2001.

11. The contentions raised by the learned AGP Mr. Shah that the respondent no. 1 is not entitled to the higher pay scale of cadre of Mamlatdar and is entitled to higher pay scale of cadre of Deputy Mamlatdar on completion of 9 years does not merit acceptance. The Tribunal has properly appreciated the facts of the case. The Tribunal has examined the facts in length and has rightly applied the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/343/2020 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2025

undefined

Resolution to the facts of the case. The contention of the Learned AGP Mr. Shah that the respondent no. 1 is entitled to higher pay scale in the cadre of Deputy Mamlatdar on completion of 9 years on 01.03.1986 cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994 has been made applicable from 01.06.1987 and the Tribunal has rightly considered the said aspect. Further, the Tribunal has rightly considered the fact that the respondent no. 1 was promoted as Deputy Mamlatdar on 13.01.1989 (regular promotion) and considering period of 9 years from the said date, he would be entitled to the higher pay scale on 13.01.1998, however, since the respondent no.1 passed the HRQE exam on 31.08.1998, the respondent no. 1 was rightly granted first higher pay scale from 31.08.1998 by the Collector vide order dated 05.12.2003. The said order was a proper order and there was no reason to cancel the said order passed by the Collector. As far as the contention of the learned AGP Mr. Shah that the respondent no.1 would be entitled to second higher pay scale on completion of 18 years only, I do not find any merit in the said submission. The respondent no. 1 is being granted first pay scale on the post of Mamlatdar which is after completion of 9 years on the post of Deputy Mamlatdar.

12. Even if we consider for the sake of argument that the respondent no. I was entitled to first higher pay scale on completion of 9 years as Clerk cum typist, then also, after having been promoted to the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/343/2020 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2025

undefined

post of Deputy Mamlatdar and having been worked on the said post on 9 years, he would be entitled to higher pay scale on the post of Mamlatdar. The said aspect has been dealt with by a coordinate bench of this Court in order dated 15.09.2006 passed in Special Civil Application no. 19691 of 2006 wherein at para no 7, this Court records as follows:

"Therefore, Tribunal has given cogent reason in support of its conclusion on the basis of undisputed facts between the parties, first higher grade given to the employee on the basis of completion of nine years service in the post of junior clerk. Thereafter he was promoted in the post of senior clerk which is all together different category on 1st July 1988. Therefore, naturally, in senior clerk category after completion of nine years, he is entitled for another higher grade in the scale of head clerk because during this nine years period, he remained in the same scale and same post and not got promotion. In such circumstances, stagnation to scale of senior clerk does not necessary. It is not second higher grade but first higher grade in senior clerk category after completion of 9 years service. The misconception on the part of learned A.G.P. is that it amounts second higher grade but in fact, higher grade given in the post of senior clerk is first higher grade in the post of senior clerk. The Government Resolution dated

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/343/2020 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2025

undefined

16th August 1994-Item No.3 has misinterpreted by learned A.G.P. Mr. Gori. He has not demonstrated it after referring Item No.3 of Government Resolution dated 16th August 1994 that how the respondent employee is not entitled for the said benefit. The simple undisputed facts tried to confuse it by learned A.G.P. Mr. Gori without understanding it. The condition Item No.3 of Government Resolution dated 16th August 1994 which applied to second and third higher grade not applicable to first higher grade. In this case, employee concerned entitled first higher grade in the post of senior clerk after completion of nine years continuous service in one post and scale.

The Apex Court has considered similar aspect in case of Union of India and Others v. M. Mathivanan reported in (2006) 6 SCC 57. The relevant Para 13 is quoted as under:

"13. Reading of the above two paragraphs makes it abundantly clear that so far as placing of an officer in the "next higher grade" is concerned, what is relevant and material is that such official belonging to basic grades in Groups 'C' and 'D' must have completed "sixteen years of service in that grade". The said paragraphs nowhere uses

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/343/2020 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2025

undefined

the connotation "regular" service. Para 2 which provides fort the Departmental Promotion Committee and consideration of cases of officials for "promotion", provides for sixteen years of "regular" service. The Tribunal, therefore, rightly considered para 1 as relevant and held that basic eligibility condition for being placed in the next higher grade is that the officer must have completed sixteen years of service in the basic grade in Group 'C' and Group 'D'. Though in other paragraphs, the service was qualified by the adjective "regular", the said qualification was not necessary for the purpose of para 1. Since the employee wanted the benefit of placement in "next higher grade", what was required to be established by him was that he had completed sixteen years of service in the grade and the said requirement had been complied with in view of the fact that with effect from 30-9-1983 he was appointed as Warrant Officer. He was, therefore, entitled to the benefit of "next higher grade"

under para 1 from 1999. The authorities were, therefore, not justified in rejecting the claim and accordingly the petition was allowed. The High Court rightly upheld the direction of CAT.""

13. Therefore, I find that the Tribunal has rightly considered the facts of the case and has rightly granted the benefits of Government

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/343/2020 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2025

undefined

Resolution dated 16.08.1994 to the respondent no.1.

14. Therefore, this basic requirement of Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994 Item No.3 has been satisfied by the respondent no.1 and on that basis, Tribunal has rightly granted the benefit to the respondent no.1 herein. The Tribunal has not committed any error which requires interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court having very limited jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot re-appreciate the facts which have been appreciated by the Tribunal and this Court cannot act as an Appellate Authority and even in case when two views are possible, this Court cannot disturb the finding while exercising the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India (See: AIR 2000 SC 1508 Para 19). Therefore, according to my opinion, the contention which has been raised by learned AGP Mr. Shah cannot be accepted and therefore, same has been rejected as there is no error committed by the Tribunal while passing such order.

15. Therefore, according to my opinion, there is no substance in the present petition. Accordingly, present petition is dismissed. Notice is discharged.

(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) URIL RANA