By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:-
"(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue appropriate writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ and direction and direct the respondent authority to quashed and set aside the official order dtd.29/7/2009 and also quash and set a side the resolution no.2 passed on dtd 3-6-2009 and granted the benefits of the 5th Pay Commission as per the compromise in the interest of justice.
(B) Your Lordship may be pleased to admit and allow this petition.
(C) Your Lordship please to declare that the petitioners are entitled to get the benefits of the 5th pay commission from dtd 27-10-2005 and also direct the respondent authority to retirement benefits as dtd 27-10-2005 (i.e. the date of the first litigation) in the interest of justice.
(D) Your Lordship may be pleased to grant the cost of this petition in the interest of justice."
The brief facts leading to the filing of present petition are as follows:-
The respondent-Gujarat Ayurved Vikas Mandal was established on 29.04.1965 and is governed by the State of Gujarat. The petitioners and 78 other employees were working with the Junagadh Pharmacy and as they were not getting the salary as per 5th Pay Commission, they approached Gujarat High Court Legal Aid Committee and their case was placed before the Lok Adalat (Vishama) and their grievance was discussed and settled. As per the compromise order dated 24.07.2007, it was decided to appoint the committee and submit its report before the Board.
As the Committee has not decided the question, regarding 5th Pay Commission, the petitioners have again approached the Lok Adalat (Vishama) and again the compromise occurred between the parties and the Committee has passed the resolution No.2 on 03.06.2009. The said resolution was placed before the Lok Adalat and the matter was disposed of on 18.06.2009.
As per the order dated 18.06.2009, the petitioners and others have demanded 5th Pay Commission and the respondent authority has passed the Office Order on 29.07.2009 and granted the benefits to only 58 persons out of 79 persons. The persons who are retired on or before 01.06.2009 were not granted the benefits of the 5th Pay Commission, even though as per the compromise, they were entitled to get the benefits of the 5th Pay Commission and other retirement benefits.
Hence, this petition.
Learned advocate for the petitioners Mrs.Parikh has submitted that the 'Gujarat Ayurved Vikas Mandal' is governed under the observation of the State of Gujarat, even though, the employees were not getting the benefits as per Government rules and regulations. She has further submitted that the action of the respondent-authority in giving the benefits of the 5th Pay Commission only to 58 persons out of 79 persons, without any reasons, though as per the compromise purses, they are also entitled to get the benefits.
Learned advocate Mr.Shukla for the respondent No.3 has raised the preliminary objections as to the maintainability of the petition as the respondent-Mandal is not receiving any grant for salary or wages from the State of Gujarat and therefore, respondent-Mandal is an autonomous body. The affidavit-in-reply is filed on behalf of respondent No.3. It is stated in the affidavit-in-reply that though the respondent-Mandal was not duty bound to pay the salary or wages as per the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission, it had entered into the settlement before Lok Adalat (Visama). The said settlement was based upon the resolution No.2 passed by respondent-Mandal, which was signed by the employees as well as the President and according to said resolution, the effect was to be given from 01.07.2009. Therefore also, respondent-Manadal is not liable to give 5th Pay Commission benefits to the present petitioners.
In my view, when the respondent-Mandal has specifically mentioned in its affidavit-in-reply that he is not receiving any grant for the salary or wages of the employees and as the administrative or managerial activities are not under the control of respondent no.3-Trust, a writ would not lie against the respondent no.3-Mandal.
In view of the above discussion, I find no merits in the present petition and hence, the petition is rejected.
[K.S.JHAVERI, J.] ..mitesh..
Top