IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4305 of 1996 For Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
========================================================= A'BAD (RURAL) DIST JUDICIAL CLASS-III SERVANTS UNION & 4 -
Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance :
MR AR SHAIKH for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 5.MR IS SUPEHIA for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 5.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2. MR GM JOSHI for Respondent(s) : 3, LAW OFFICER BRANCH for Respondent(s) : 3, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Date : 07/09/2012 CAV JUDGMENT
1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus quashing and setting aside the orders dated 27.2.1996 and 24.4.2007 and further seeking issuance of directions to the respondents to grant the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 to the petitioners with effect from 1.1.1986 and to pay the arrears becoming due with 12% interest.
2. Petitioners are Class-III employees of District Judiciary in the State of Gujarat. It is their case that the pay scale of Rs.425-800 was revised to Rs.1400-2600 by the State Government under the Revision of Pay Rules of 1987 as mentioned in “Annexure-A” to the petition. The State Government by notification dated 20.3.1991, further revised the pay scale of certain employees of other departments from Rs.1400-2600 to Rs.1640-2900. After this revision, various employees working in the District Judiciary including petitioners made representations to the Government to grant them the same pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 which was given to the employees of other departments, however their request was declined vide impugned orders.
3. After notice, the petition has been contested by the respondents by filing the reply; therein it has been stated that the District Judicial Class-III servants were placed in the revised pay scale of Rs.1400-2600. It is further submitted that as there were certain anomalies in the pay scales of other categories of employees of the State Government, the Government appointed a High Level Committee headed by the Finance Minister to consider the representations received from various unions. The said committee made certain recommendations which were accepted by the State Government and the pay scale of a few class of employees in the pre-revised scale of Rs.425-800 was revised to Rs.1640-2900. Accordingly, the pay scale of Assistants in Sachivalaya, Deputy Mamlatdars, Sales Tax Inspectors etc. were revised. It is also pleaded that there were employees of about 72 departments in the pay scale of Rs.425-800 who made representations for revision of pay scales. As no anomaly was found in their pay scales, the representations made by these employees were rejected.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the pay scale of the petitioners of Rs.425-800 was not revised to Rs.1640-2900 with effect from 1.1.1986 for want of necessary materials before the High Level Committee which was not produced by the Legal Department and had it been produced, the same revision would have been granted to the employees of the Judicial Department. He further submitted that there was hardly any further and distinct materials produced before the High Level Committee by other departments of the State Government in whose cases the pay scale has been revised to Rs.1640-2900. Learned counsel for the petitioners has laid much emphasis on the point that the recruitment rules, duties etc. were the same which were before the pay commission and non- granting the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 to the petitioners is the result of non-application of mind and arbitrary. Lastly, it is requested to allow this petition
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the rejection letters / orders of the State Government.
6. It will be relevant to mention here that during pendency of this petition, on 14.2.2007, an interim order has been passed by this Court in favour of the petitioners wherein the State Government was directed to consider the recommendations made by the High Court of Gujarat and accept the same. In pursuance of this order, the State Government passed a detailed order dated 24.4.2007 vide which the recommendations of the High Court has been declined. The petitioners by way of amendment have also sought quashing of this order dated 24.4.2007.
7. The main grievance of the petitioners in this case is to revise their scale to Rs.1640-2900 which has been given to the Assistants, Sales Tax Inspectors and Deputy Mamlatdars. Prior to the revision, all these officials were in the same pay scale as that of the petitioners i.e. Rs.425-800 and thereafter Rs.1400-2600.
8. It is not in dispute that while fixing pay scales, one has to keep in mind the method of recruitment, the level at which the recruitment has been made, the hierarchy of service in the given cadre, the minimum educational qualification, avenues of promotion, the extent of area to which the official can be posted and the employers capacity to pay etc. In order to claim parity, in the pay scales with the employees of other departments, one has to establish that his nature of job, qualifications and the duties are similar. The respondents in their impugned order dated 24.4.2007 have clearly stated that the job and nature of duties of Assistants, Sales Tax Inspectors and Mamlatdars are different from that of the petitioners. It is also mentioned that apart from the present petitioners, there are many posts in the State at present getting the pay scale of Rs.1400-2600 which has never been revised to Rs.1640-2900. At the time of acceptance of pay scales of the Central Government, the principal of giving “the scale to scale” was followed and accordingly, the pay scale of cadre of non-judicial staff has been kept at Rs.1400-2600. It is further mentioned in the impugned order that the pay scale of Assistants of Secretariat, Deputy Mamlatdars of the Revenue Department and Inspectors of Sales Tax Department have been given on the basis of pay scales of the Central Government and on the basis of recommendations by the High Level Committee constituted by the State Government. It is also mentioned that the qualification of Deputy Mamlatdars, Sales Tax Inspectors and Assistants of Secretariat is Graduation and they get appointment through a competitive examination conducted by the GPSC. It is further their case that the present petitioners are SCC pass and have been appointed on this post by promotion and, therefore, it would be absolutely unreasonable to compare them with the Assistants, Deputy Mamlatdars and Sales Tax Inspectors and to grant them the same pay scales which has been given to these employees. The question of posts and salaries is a complex question which could only be answered by an expert body. It would be pertinent to mention here that the case of the present petitioners was sent to the expert committee which after taking into account the abovementioned principles have reached to the conclusion that the present petitioners have been rightly given the pay scale of Rs.1400-2600. Once, it is established that the committee has worked within four corners of law, the mathematical precision and microscopic scrutiny of every administrative action cannot be permitted.
9. Resultantly, this petition must fail and is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
(Mohinder Pal,J) pathan