[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Kamleshbhai Bharatbhai Shah ... vs State Of Gujarat Thro Secretary on 23 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17495/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17495 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
=============================================
KAMLESHBHAI BHARATBHAI SHAH ADDL.ASSISTANT
ENGINEER
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT THRO SECRETARY & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR BHUVNESH GEHLOT FOR MR NK MAJMUDAR(430) for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS DHRUTI PANDYA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MR ARPIT A KAPADIA(3974) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 23/04/2026
JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr.Bhuvnesh Gehlot, learned advocate for
Mr.N.K.Majmudar, learned advocate for the petitioner,
Ms.Dhruti Pandya, learned AGP for the State respondents and
Mr.Arpit Kapadia, learned advocate for respondent No. 3.
2. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:
"A) admit this petition;
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17495/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
B) issue appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to direct
the respondent, their officers to grant/disburse the benefit of 2nd
higher pay scale to the petitioner at the earliest as per the G.R.
Dated 2.7.2007 and difference of salary to be ordered to be paid to
the petitioner with 12% interest and the said benefit be ordered to
be paid to the petitioner either considering the date of appointment
of the petitioner as 21.4.1980 and/or 7.8.1980;
C) be pleased to grant interim relief to the petitioner and be
pleased to direct the respondent authorities to grant the benefit of
2nd higher pay scale to the petitioner pending admission and final
disposal of the petition; "
3. At the outset, it is required to be observed that while
admitting this petition on 25.03.2013 by this Court, the
following order was passed :
"1. Heard Mr. Suthar, learned advocate for the petitioner and
Mr. Kapadia, learned advocate for the respondent no.3.
2. In the present petition, the petitioner has assailed the
respondent's decision or inaction of not extending benefit of
second higher pay scale to the petitioner despite the fact that
petitioner has completed 24 years of service with respondent
and has become entitled for second higher pay scale as per
applicable resolution / policy.
3. Learned advocate for the respondent submitted that one
petition preferred by the petitioner is pending before the Court
and both the petitions may be heard together.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner opposed such request on
the ground that issue involved in the pending petition is
different from the issue involved in present petition and merely
on the ground of pendency of petition, the respondents are not
releasing petitioner's benefit of second higher pay scale.
5. It is noticed from the record that the petition being Special
Civil Application No.9275 of 2011 is pending in the Court and
the order impugned in said petition i.e. order directing recovery
of the payment made to the petitioner has been stayed by the
Hon'ble Court below order dated 14.11.2011.
6. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that without
prejudice to his rights and contentions as well as claim in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17495/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
present petition, the petitioner is ready to accept the benefit
w.e.f. 07.08.1980 i.e. from the date which, according to the
respondent, is relevant date for petitioner's entitlement and
petitioner would not insist, for the present, to extend the
benefits from the date which the petitioner considers to be the
relevant date i.e. 21.04.1980 and the respondent may extend
the said benefit to the petitioner without prejudice to rival
claims, rights and contentions.
7. It prima facie appears that the fact that the petitioner has
completed 24 years of service is not disputed by the
respondents. It also appears that in view of the facts of the
case, below mentioned order would serve the interest of
justice :
Rule. To be heard with Special Civil Application No. 9275 of
2011.
8. In the meanwhile, the competent authority of respondent will
consider the petitioner's entitlement for second higher pay
scale, and pass appropriate order within four weeks from the
service of certified copy of present order after affording the
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. If, petitioner is found
eligible for releasing / extending benefit of second higher pay
scale then such benefit may be extended to the petitioner and
necessary payment be made within two weeks from such
decision. It is clarified that pendency of present petition and / or
aforesaid other petition, will not stand in the way of
consideration of petitioner's entitlement which shall be
considered and decided purely in the light of factual aspect of
the petitioner's total length of service and applicable policy.
9. For the aforesaid purpose, the petitioner is permitted to take
direct service of the present order in addition of normal mode of
service through office."
4. Mr.Kapadia, learned advocate for respondent No.3,
presented a copy of service-book of the petitioner for perusal
of this Court, wherefrom it can be seen that after said order
and during the pendency of this petition, the petitioner was
granted benefit of second higher pay-scale and he is already
retired from service by receiving all the benefits. Thus, under
the instructions of his client, Mr. Kapadia, learned advocate
would state that after the said order dated 25.03.2013 passed
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17495/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
by this Court in this matter, the benefit of the second higher
pay-scale was already granted in favour of the petitioner.
5. In view of the aforesaid development which has taken
place during the pendency of this petition, according to my
view, nothing further requires to be adjudicated by this Court.
6. In light of the aforesaid, the present petition is partly
allowed. Rule is made absolute, to the aforesaid extent. There
shall be no order as to costs.
(MAULIK J. SHELAT, J)
GAURAV J THAKER
