(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)
1. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 4.7.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No.2230 of 2012; whereby, the learned Single Judge for the reasons recorded in the order, has dismissed the petition.
2. We have heard Mr.N.D.Buch for the appellant-original petitioner.
3. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that, in case of Surendranagar District is concerned, the permission for up-gradation of the post was granted; whereas, in case of petitioner herein, such permission was not granted. He submitted that the original petitioners, in fact, are working as Driver-cum-Peon and therefore, they are entitled for the regular pay-scale only if posts are upgraded.
4. It was submitted that the learned Single Judge has not properly considered the said aspect and therefore, this Court may consider in the appeal.
5. If we consider the prayers made in the petition, the same is essentially for up-gradation of the post and the decision of the Government is under challenge. Whether to upgrade the post or not is, essentially, policy matter of the Government and rather than the domain of the employer and this Court, even under Article 226 of the Constitution, would not sit in appeal over such matter. The decision upon which the reliance is placed by the petitioner in case of Surendranagar district is concerned, the same was taken long back in the year 1990 and at that stage, the pay-scales were different and the requirement of District and capacity to pay would be different. The same cannot be equated in the year 2005 and/or even 2013 as sought to be canvassed. It is not a matter where the petitioners have prayed for salary of the Driver on the ground of equal pay for equal work but is a matter where up-gradation of the post was prayed.
6. In our view, such being the domain of the employer and the ground of discrimination, as sought to be canvassed, is without any substance because the parity cannot be considered with the policy as was prevailing in the year 1990 that too, for a different district.
7. Under these circumstances, we find that the ultimate decision taken by the learned Single Judge does not call for interference. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed.
(JAYANT PATEL, J.) (MOHINDER PAL, J.) ashish Page 3 of 3