1.0 The petitioner herein has prayed for a direction to the Respondent authorities to consider the service of the petitioner as if the petitioner was entitled for promotion to ClassI Chief Officer and to pay all the retirement benefits of provident fund and gratuity on the basis of ClassI Chief Officer and further prayed for other incidental relies.
2.0 According to the petitioner, he was serving with Jetpur Municipality as Chief Officer and drawing salary of ClassI Chief Officer. By Resolution dated 18.10.1999 the petitioner was absorbed in the State of Gujarat in the cadre of Chief Officer and he was drawing pay scale of Rs.800027514050 and drawing total emolument of Rs.18942/ fixed for ClassI Chief Officer. He retired from service by virtue of order dated 31.01.2001.
2.1 It is the further say of the petitioner that as per notification issued for the service conditions of the Chief Officer in Gujarat State dated 18.10.1999, the petitioner was absorbed as ClassII Chief Officer and he was placed at serial No.1, ClassII Chief Officer. It is the contention that as per clause 4 of the service condition of the Chief Officer, the petitioner was entitled for promotion to the post of ClassI Chief Officer, but the respondents did not consider his case. In short, it is the case of the petitioner that the respondent failed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of ClassI Chief Officer, though he had made representation in this regard and no reply was given. Hence the present petition.
3.0 Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that after introduction of uniform condition of service for Chief Officer, 1996 in Gujarat State, petitioner’s service cannot be absorbed as ClassII Chief Officer as petitioner was drawing pay scale of ClassI Chief Officer before 1996. According to him, the petitioner was getting pay scale of ClassI Chief Officer even though his service was absorbed as ClassII Chief Officer. The learned Advocate therefore submitted that as per the uniform service condition of Chief Officer, the petitioner was entitled to be promoted as ClassI Chief Officer. This promotion is not given to the petitioner without any reason and therefore the petitioner was entitled to get promotion to ClassI Chief Officer and his retirement benefits are required to be calculated and fixed as that of ClassI Chief Officer.
4.0 Mr. Dave, learned Assistant Government pleader contended that the petitioner was not fulfilling the requisite condition of having degree of graduation for Class I Chief Officer. Therefore, as per statutory rules, which came in to force on 20.12.1994, the petitioner is not entitled for promotion for the post of Chief Officer Class I.
5.0 Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. As a result of this exercise, the main question to be decided in this petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to be promoted on the post of ClassI Chief Officer or not.
5.1 Chapter III of Gujarat State Municipal Chief Officers’ Service (Recruitment, Absorption and Condition of Service) Rules 1995 pertains to Absorption. Rule 6 states as under:
Absorption of existing Chief Officers – (1) Every existing Chief Officers – (1) who has not completed 58 years of age on the appointed day, (ii) who possesses the qualifications laid down by section 47(2) of The Gujarat Municipalities act, 1963 as it stood before last amendment, (iii) whose work and conduct as Chief Officer immediately before the appointed day was, in the opinion of the Government, satisfactory – may be entitled to be absorbed in grade II of the service.
5.2 Thus, if an incumbent qualifies the age and qualification, he can be absorbed in Grade II of the service and not GradeI of the Service. Merely because the petitioner was holding the post of Chief Officer at the relevant time cannot be a ground to accept his claim that he should be placed in Grade I ignoring the aforesaid rules. When the rule states that a particular grade is to be given, merely because an incumbent is drawing higher salary cannot be heard to say that he should be placed in Grade I service. Further, it is pointed out that the petitioner was not fulfilling the requisite condition of having degree of graduation.
6.0 Learned Advocate for the petitioner is not in a position to point out anything from the record that the aforesaid rules are not applicable to the petitioner and the petitioner is entitled to the post of ClassI Chief Officer.
7.0 In the premises aforesaid, I do not find any merits in the petition.
The same is therefore dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.
8.0 The petitioner before retirement was getting the pay scale of Class I Chief Officer from 01.01.1975 and therefore, his pay will be protected.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru*`