The State of Gujarat through the Director, Government Printing and Stationary, has filed the present petition praying to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 29.02.2000 delivered by Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal, Gandhinagar ('the Tribunal', for sake of brevity) in Appeal No. 66 of 1996, whereby it allowed the appeal of respondent herein, directing the appellant to give him benefit of higher pay grade. When the petition was admitted on 10.07.2000, the implementation, execution and operation of the impugned judgment and order was stayed. 2. The attendant facts necessary for disposal of the petition are that the petitioner was employed as Senior Clerk under Government Printing Press, Bhavnagar from 01.08.1996. He claimed benefit of higher pay scale under Finance Department Resolution dated 05.07.1991 read with Resolution dated 16.08.1994 on the basis of completion of nine years of service. His claim was rejected by order dated 31.05.1995. It appears that against that order, the respondent employee preferred Appeal No.269 of 1995 before the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal, Gandhinagar, but the same was withdrawn as the order was first required to be challenged before the Director Government Printing and Stationary, Gandhinagar. The appeal before the competent appellate authority was preferred, which came to be rejected. That order was challenged by way of Appeal No. 66 of 1996 again before the tribunal which culminated into the impugned judgment and order.
3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Ronak Raval submitted that the tribunal could not have proceeded to adjudicate upon the dispute regarding higher payscale, as it had no jurisdiction for that. He invited attention of the Court to Section 11 of the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal Act, 1972 ['the Act', for sake of brevity] and the matters specified in the schedule to the Act.
4. Section 10 of the Act provides that the tribunal shall have jurisdiction to hear and decide (a) appeals filed by specified civil servants under section 11; (b) any application filed by the State Government under section 12; and (c) appeals and applications transferred to it under section 21. Under Section 11 appeals lie in respect of the matters specified in the Schedule. The Schedule appended for the provisions of Sections 11, 12, 19 and 21 of the Act. It specified the following matters.
(1) Dismissal or removal from service or reduction in rank, (2) Reduction of pay or to a lower time-scale of pay, (3) Non-confirmation in service, (4) Non promotion to a higher post, (5) Reversion to a lower post, (6) Discharge from Service, (7) Compulsory retirement, (8) Reduction to a lower stage in the time- scale of pay for a specified period, (9) Censure, (10) Reduction in or withholding the pension or denial of the maximum pension admissible under the rules, (11) Withholding of increments, (12) Stoppage at Efficiency Bar in time-scale of pay, (13) Recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government by negligence or breach of orders.
4.2 Section 19 of the Act provides that the State Government may, by Notification in the Official Gazette, add to the schedule any entry relating to any matter affecting specified civil servants and thereupon the schedule shall be deemed to have been amended accordingly for the purpose of this Act. No such Notification is shown to have been issued by which the matter of higher grade is specified to be added to amend the schedule.
4.3 In all, 13 categories of subjects are specified in the Schedule. An appeal would lie to the Tribunal under section 11 in respect of dispute of those categories and the Tribunal is vested with jurisdiction to decide such appeals in respect of the matters specified. In other words, the categories enumerated in the Schedule determine the jurisdictional sweep of the Tribunal for the purpose of appeals under section 11. Amongst the matters specified in the Schedule, grant of higher grade or higher pay scale is not one of the subjects specified. When the higher grade is not one of the subjects specified in Schedule, no appeal would lie before the Tribunal and the Tribunal would not be having jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate an appeal involving that subject matter. Learned Assistant Government Pleader rightly contended that the impugned decision by the Tribunal was without jurisdiction.
4.4. The point is no longer res integra in view of decisions of this Court in State of Gujarat vs. B. L. Trivedi and Another decided on 27.08.2004 in Special Civil Application No.1852 of 2004 and also in State of Gujarat vs. Geeta D. Patel and others in Special Civil Application No.13653 of 2005 decided on 26.10.2005.
5. Indisputably, in the present case, the respondent had claimed higher payscale benefit in terms of Government Resolutions. The authorities found the respondent to be ineligible for higher grade, whereas the tribunal allowed the appeal against the order of the authority. As discussed above, the tribunal was lacking the jurisdiction to decide the dispute regarding the higher grade. It could not have accepted for hearing or entertained the appeal involving such dispute.
5.1 The impugned judgment and award of the tribunal therefore was manifestly without jurisdiction and accordingly unsustainable. As a result, the judgment and award of the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal, Gandhinagar in Appeal No.66 of 1996 is hereby quashed and set aside being without jurisdiction.
6. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of petitioner's claim for the higher payscale. It is further clarified dismissal of the present petition will not preclude the petitioner from challenging the order which was challenged before the tribunal. It will be open and permissible for the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings before the appropriate Court/forum and to challenge therein the order which was challenged before the Tribunal.
7. The petition is allowed subject to aforesaid observations. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.
Amit [N. V. ANJARIA, J.]