1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred with a prayer to direct the respondents to decide the representation dated 12.11.2014 made by the petitioner, after granting him an opportunity of hearing, within a stipulated period of time.
2. The petitioner was, initially, appointed as a Craft Instructor on 08.07.1981. He was promoted as Supervisor Instructor on 01.02.1990 and, thereafter, promoted as Foreman Instructor on 11.11.2011 on which Page 1 of 5 C/SCA/6988/2015 ORDER post he retired on 30.09.2013. An issue of pay anomaly arose due to implementation of the 6th Paycommission and grant of payscale to all the aforesaid three cadres, that is, Craft Instructor, Supervisor Instructor and Foreman Instructor was the subject matter of challenge in Special Civil Application No.12541 of 2011 and allied matters. By the order dated 28.11.2011, this Court allowed the petitions and directed the respondent authorities to fix the pay and payscale of the petitioners of those petitions at par with their junior Mr.N.M. Chauhan by giving stepping up in accordance with Paragraph (5) of the Government Resolution dated 10.10.2007 read with Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994. In view of the aforesaid, respondent No.1 passed an order dated 10.02.2014 containing revised list of such employees who are entitled for stepping up. Another order dated 23.05.2014 was issued by respondent No.2 regarding the stepping up of the employees. The name of the petitioner stands at Serial No.188 and his Seniority Number is shown as 853. The date of stepping up is shown as 01.01.1997 and his pay is fixed at Rs.5,675/ in the payscale of Rs.55009000. Recovery has been Page 2 of 5 C/SCA/6988/2015 ORDER ordered to be effected from the petitioner. The petitioner made various representations dated 21.03.2014, 10.08.2014 and, lastly, on 12.11.2014 to respondent No.2, stating that his payfixation has been wrongly done. The case of the petitioner is that his junior, Shri N.M. Chauhan whose date of appointment is 01.01.1987 has been granted higher pay scale with effect from 01.01.1996, whereas the petitioner, who was appointed on 08.07.1981, has not been granted the higher payscale from the date of his entitlement. The representations of the petitioner have received no response, hence, a notice dated 20.01.2015 was issued through an advocate. As no action has been taken by the respondents to redress the grievances of the petitioner, he has approached this Court by way of the present petition.
3. At the outset, Mr.Bhavik J. Pandya, learned advocate for the petitioner, states that the interest of justice would be met, if respondent No.2 Commissioner, Employment and Training, is directed to consider and decide the representation dated 12.11.2014 made by the petitioner, after granting the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. Page 3 of 5
C/SCA/6988/2015 ORDER
4. Mr.Vishrut R. Jani, learned Assistant Government Pleader, has no objection to this request made by the learned advocate for the petitioner.
5. In view of the above, the following order is passed:
Respondent No.2 Commissioner, Employment and Training is directed to consider and decide the representation dated 12.11.2014 made by the petitioner, after granting the petitioner an adequate opportunity of hearing to him. The representation shall be decided in accordance with law, within a period of ten weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order.
6. The petition is disposed of, in the above terms, without entering into the merits of the case. Direct Service of this order is permitted.