(1) RULE. Mr.Rakesh R. Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader, appears and waives services of rule on behalf of the State authorities.
(2) By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction by quashing and setting aside the impugned action of the Respondent No.3 for withholding the approval for second higher grade pay scale vide letter dtd. 17/4/2010 as per AnnexureF has being violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and against the principles of natural justice and further be pleased to declare that the petitioner is entitled to get second grade higher pay scale w.e.f. 12.11.2004 in the pay scale of Rs.650010500.
(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction by directing the Respondent No.1 to instruct the Respondent No.3 by issuing a necessary clarification and compliance fo the query and not to withhold the benefit of second grade higher pay scale of the petitioner pending admission hearing and final disposal of the present petition and further be please to direct the respondent to calculate the difference of salary payable to the petitioner and submit before this Hon'ble High Court on next date of hearing.
(C) To grant such other and further relief/s as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the the facts and circumstances of the case.”
(3) This Court (Coram: Anant S. Dave, J) vide order dated 27.12.2011 passed the following order:
“Heard learned advocates for the parties.
In spite of recording of the fact about pay protection granted to the petitioner by an order dated 3.3.1992, on 23rd October 2009 the local fund examiner has raised objections after a period of 18 years that when the pension papers were submitted, that copy of the said order is to be produced by the petitioner for passing necessary order.
The above approach and attitude of the Asst.
Examiner, Local Fund Accounts is irrelevant to the fact inasmuch as the head of the commissionerate had passed an order accepting the order of pay protection of the petitioner dated 3.3.1992.
If remedial measure is not taken by 29.12.2011, the Asst. Examiner, Local Fund Accounts is to personally remain present before this Court. Direct service is permitted.
A copy of this order be given to the learned AGP.”
(4) Heard Mr.Bipin P. Jasani, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.Rakesh Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent authorities.
(5) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had rendered services as Assistant Teacher for six years 4 months and 19 days in Vivekand Experimental High School, Mehsana, which is registered and nongovernment granted school. That thereafter the petitioner joined respondent No.4School on 01.04.1991. That the petitioner was thereafter awarded first Higher Grade Pay scale w.e.f. 12.11.1993 on his completion of nine years with payscale of Rs.16402900. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner completed 20 years of service in the payscale of Rs.650010500 w.e.f. 12.11.2004 and the State Government accordingly granted second Higher Grade PayScale vide order dated 20.05.2009.
Respondent No.4School made a proposal for second Higher Grade PayScale for verification with respondent No.3 authority and respondent No.3 took objections regarding the petitioner earlier service from 12.11.1984 to 31.03.1991. That even though the petitioner's case is covered by the policy of the State Government, vide resolution dated 16.08.1994 the respondent authorities did not even examine his case and, therefore, as a last resort, the petitioner has constrained to prefer the present petition.
(6) Mr.Jasani, learned advocate for the petitioner, submitted that in many such similar cases there is lethargic approach on the part of the respondent authorities to decide the issue even though the policy of the State Government is clear on such aspect.
(7) Mr.Rakesh Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader, in pursuance to the earlier order dated 27.12.2011, has placed on record communication dated 04.01.2012, addressed by Office of District Assistant Inspector of Local Board, Navsari, which is taken on record. A copy of the said communication is also given to the learned advocate for the petitioner.
(8) Considering the said communication, it has been stated that the orders of the second Higher Grade PayScale has been worked out and it has been deposited in the Treasury at Vansda on 03.01.2012.
(9) Mr.Jasani, learned advocate for the petitioner, submitted that in view of the above communication the grievance of the petitioner does not survive any more. However, as the grievance ventilated by the learned advocate for the petitioner the respondent authorities should examine the case in its true letters and spirit, which is absent in the present case and only after the order is passed by this Court actions are taken. Such attitude of the respondent authorities, more particularly respondent No.3 herein, who is expected to know the prevailing policy of the government requires to be deprecated.
(10) With these observations, the petition is disposed of. Rule discharged. There shall be no order as to costs.
Bhavesh* *** Sd/ [R.M.CHHAYA, J ]