(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI) 1. We have heard Mr. P. M. Lakhani, learned counsel for the appellant. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 27/06/2012, passed in Special Civil Application No. 9038 of 2011 by which, the learned Single Judge has rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of higher payscale.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant – original petitioner was selected and appointed as Medical Officer (ClassII) under the Health and Family Welfare Department of the Government of Gujarat on 30/03/1974. The appellant worked as Medical Officer (ClassII) from 04/04/1974 to 21/08/1980 and thereafter he joined at the place of his new assignment as 'Tutor in Radiology (Class II)' from 23/04/1980. As both the services were under the Government of Gujarat his service was treated as a continuous service by the resolution of the Government of Gujarat, Health and Family Welfare Department vide Resolution dated 12/04/1986. The appellant was in continuous service and continuously served for a period of more than six years. As per the Tiku Committee's Report, an employee is entitled to get three higher grade pay scale during his entire service. The recommendations of the Tiku Commission has been accepted by the Government of Gujarat vide Resolution dated 05/07/1991 and passed an order to give benefit of promotion/higher grade pay scale to the concerned employees as recommended by Tiku Committee. The appellant made application to get such benefit on 27/07/1997. The appellant retired from the services on attaining the age limit on 31/10/2004. The appellant received a letter from the office of the Commissioner, Health Medical Services and Medical Education (Health Department), Government of Gujarat, Gandhinagar by which he was informed that as per letter dated 13/12/2007 of Health and Family Welfare Department of Government of Gujarat, he is not entitled to get benefit of higher pay scale/promotion as he has not served with the Health Department from 14/11/1991 to 17/10/1994. The appellant preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. Since it was not decided, he preferred Special Civil Application No. 8965 of 2010 before this Court which came to be disposed of with direction to the respondent authority to take appropriate decision on the representation made by the appellant on 20/05/2008. Respondent No. 2 has rejected the representation on the ground that higher pay scale can be available only to the Medical Officer and the appellant was subsequently working as a 'Tutor' in the Medical college and retired as a 'Tutor', and hence he is not entitled to get higher pay scale.
3. The counsel for the appellant – original petitioner has placed reliance before the learned Single Judge on Government Resolution dated 05/07/1991. The appellant has claimed higher payscale on the ground that if his past six years' service as Medical Officer is counted then, he will be entitled for higher payscale, when he joined as a Tutor in Radiology. The learned Single Judge has considered the question and has found that both the services were different, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled for the benefit of higher payscale as per the Tikku Commission. It is necessary to extract Para 4 and 5 of the order of the learned Single Judge, which are extracted as under:
“4.0 Learned advocate for the respondent submitted that the petitioner is claiming the relief of Higher Grade Pay Scale as recommended by Tiku Committee. The petitioner was appointed as Medical Officer in the year 1974. On 22.08.1980 in fact petitioner joined Medical Education Department as a Tutor. Both cadre are different, job chart as well as seniority is also different. Therefore, as per the Tiku Commission, the benefits could not be granted to the petitioner.
5.0 Heard learned advocates for the parties. The contention of the learned advocate for the petitioner regarding grant of higher pay scale as per Tiku Committee is misconceived inasmuch as for the higher pay scale he must have worked on the same post for which he was seeking higher pay scale. His earlier service can be considered for the continuity of service. The petitioner has worked on different posts and therefore his earlier service cannot be considered for higher pay scale. The view taken by the authority is just and proper. No interference is called for. The petition stands disposed of. Notice is discharged with no order as to costs.”
3.1 We agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has then urged that another Government Resolution dated 12/04/2012 has been issued by the Government, which is brought on record by way of draft amendment, wherein it is provided that those Tutors who had retired after 01/01/2006 would be entitled to get the benefit of Resolution dated 12/04/2012.
4.1 Admittedly, the appellant – original petitioner had retired from service on 31/05/2004. Therefore, Resolution dated 12/04/2012 is not applicable to the case of the appellant.
5. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merits in this Letters Patent Appeal. This appeal is dismissed summarily.
[ V. M. Sahai, J. ] [ G. B. Shah, J. ] hiren