1. The petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:
“(A) Be pleased to allow the aforesaid Special Civil Application in the interest of justice.
(B) Be pleased to direct the Respondent No.1 and 2 to release the entire arrears for the period from 1st September, 1977 to till today through appropriate fixation of the grade of Rs.260-350 calculating the difference paid to the petitioner through his old pay scales forthwith in the interest of justice.
(C) Be pleased to impeach the Respondent No.1, Director of Campus through appropriate warning looking to his conduct and exclusive mentality in consideration of the Hon'ble High Court's judgment for more than 10 years period elapsed, exfacio arbitrarily in the interest of justice.
(D) Be pleased to impose exemplary and compensatory cost of Rs.10,000/- being economical hardships and mental torturing faced by the petitioner during such longer period without any kind of his fault.
(E) Be pleased to pass appropriate order in the interest of justice”.
2. The petition arises in following factual background.
3. The petitioner was initially engaged as wireman-cum-helper in the year 1976 by the respondents i.e. the Agriculture University. Such engagement was fixed term engagement and not regular. The petitioner, therefore, filed Special Civil Application No.1584 of 1989 complaining that right from the year 1976, he is continued in the work charge establishment without the benefits of regularization. Such petition was disposed of by learned Single Judge on 5.5.1992. In such judgment, while allowing the petition, following directions were issued.
“5. In the result, this petition is accepted. The respondents are directed to take the petitioner on the regular establishment from the date of completion of 240 days from the date of his first appointment with all consequential benefits of continuous service. Rule is accordingly made absolute however with no order as to costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the case”.
4. The respondents in compliance of such direction of this Court, passed an order dated 9.12.1992. In such order, the pay of the petitioner was fixed in the regular establishment as wireman-cum- helper in the scale of Rs.196-232 (pre-revised). In the revised scale, he was placed in the pay-scale of Rs.950-1400. He was also held entitled to consequential benefits pursuant to such regularization and fixation of pay.
5. In the present petition, the grievance raised by the petitioner is that he ought to have been placed in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.260-350 instead of Rs.196-232. The petitioner has relied on entry No.135 in Schedule-I of regular establishment of Gujarat Agriculture University. Such entry No.135 reads as under:
6. On the basis of such entry, the case of the petitioner is that he ought to have been placed in pay scale of Rs.260-350. It is, therefore prayed in para- 7(B) of the petition that his pay be fixed at Rs.260-
350 and the arrears be paid forthwith.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the pay scale of wireman ought to have been applied to the petitioner. He was qualified wireman holding 2nd class wireman certificate issued by recognized institute. In that view of the matter, action of the respondents in placing the petitioner in lower scale of Rs.196-232 was erroneous.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel, Mr.Chauhan for the Agriculture University opposed the petition contending that the petitioner was not engaged as wireman but as a wireman-cum-helper. It was on this post, he was ultimately regularized pursuant to the order of this Court. The post of wireman-cum- helper in the pre-revised scale carried only one pay scale, namely, Rs.196-232. He was, therefore, rightly placed in such scale. Upon pay revision such scale was bifurcated into two scales of Rs.750-940 for unqualified employees and Rs.950-1400 for qualified employees. Since the petitioner was considered as qualified, he was placed in the revised scale of Rs.950-1400.
9. Counsel for the petitioner also raised an additional contention, namely, with respect to delay in making several payments including arrears of salary pursuant to regularization granted in view of judgment of this Court and other benefits of pay revision, which accrued to the petitioner, from time to time. Counsel for the petitioner contended that there was gross delay in making such payment and respondents must, therefore, pay interest on such payment. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India V/s. Justice S.S.Sandhawalia (Retd.) and others reported in (1994) 2 SCC 240.
10. Dealing with second contention first, I find that in the petition, there is no averment nor any prayer for payment of interest on delayed payment of arrears, etc. Entire petition is focused only on question of pay scale of petitioner in pre-revised scale. According to the petitioner, the same should have been done in the scale of Rs.260-350. Nowhere the petitioner raised any grievance about delay in making payment of any of the arrears arising out of regularization in services or arising out of subsequent pay revision. Equally, significantly, no prayer has been made to make payment of any such interest on delayed payments. His request, therefore, for granting the interest cannot be entertained.
11. Counsel for the petitioner did draw my attention to Civil Application No.12867 of 2008 in which one of the prayers was for payment of interest on the arrears of Rs.1,76,707/- to the petitioner which was paid after 15 years and further the payment of Rs.2,31,707/- paid towards revision of pay which according to the petitioner was much delayed. However, such civil application came to be disposed of by an order dated 14.11.2008; wherein, no such prayer was granted. Of-course, such prayer was also not turned down. In any case, such civil application does not survive and there is no amendment made in the petition either laying any foundation for claiming interest on alleged delayed payment nor matching prayer is made. Such a request on mere oral submission cannot be entertained.
12. Coming to the main issue raised in the petition, one may recall that the grievance of the petitioner is that he was wrongly placed in the scale of Rs.196-232 instead of Rs.260-350/-. From the record, I find that the post of wireman did carry two scales. Even in the pre-revised scales, pay scales prescribed were Rs.196-232 for unqualified employees and Rs.260-350 for qualified employees. However, in case of wireman-cum-helper, the post on which the petitioner was initially engaged and later on regularized, in the pre-revised scale only one pay scale was prescribed, namely, that of Rs.196-232. So much is apparent from the notification produced on record by the counsel for the respondent. It is also significant that in the revised scale, such pay scale was bifurcated into 2 parts. One for unqualified wiremen-cum-helper which was Rs.750-940 and other for qualified wireman i.e. Rs.950-1400. Since the petitioner did hold the necessary qualification, in such revised scale, he was placed at Rs.950-1400/-. To my mind, therefore, respondents committed no error in granting Rs.196-232 in the pre-revised scale to the petitioner. It is of-course true that in the affidavit dated 19th December, 1992, the respondents have created some confusion by suggesting that wireman-cum-helper also in the pre-revised scales, two scales were prescribed depending on whether the person is qualified or unqualified. However, such inadvertent error would not permit me to discard the documentary evidence of the notification prevailing at the relevant time prescribing only one scale of Rs.196-232 in the pre-revised scale for the post of wireman-cum- helper.
13. Under the circumstances, the prayer of the petitioner for being placed in the pay scale of Rs.260-350, in the pre-revised scale, is also not justified. Apart from the respondents, objection that the petition was highly belated, which I find is quite true since petitioner was placed in the scale of Rs.196-232 in December, 1992 and the petition was filed in the year 2002, even, on merits, I do not find the petitioner has made out any case.
14. In the result, the petition cannot be entertained at this stage. Hence, petition fails and is dismissed. Rule discharged.
(AKIL KURESHI, J.) (ashish)