AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Supehia, J
The present Letters Patent Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865, is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.06.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the captioned writ petition in part, filed by the members of the respondent – Union.
The respondent – Union had filed the captioned writ petition seeking the following prayers : -
“(A) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents to granted the revised pay scales to the employees of the corporation as per the recommendations of the 5th pay commission with effect from 1.1.96 along with arrears.
(B) The respondents be directed to revise the pay fixations of the employees of the respondent No. 3 corporation who have been reengaged as per the scheme Annexure-B
(C) The respondents be further directed to correct the pay fixation of the employees on re engagement giving benefit of the existing higher pay scale.
(D) The respondents further directed to grant encashment of unavailed LTC carry forward or medical leave payment of proportionate for the year 1998-99”
The learned Single Judge, by the impugned judgment and order dated 30.06.2014, has only granted the relief to the members of the respondent – Union with regard to the protection of their pay in higher pay-scale “if any” has been drawn by them on the date of closure of the Gujarat Fisheries Development Corporation Limited.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader at the outset, has submitted that the learned Single Judge fell in error in issuing such directions, as the same would be contrary to the provisions of the Circular dated 06.07.1998, which has been issued by the Gujarat Fisheries Development Corporation Limited for its employees either to opt for voluntary scheme or they may be declared surplus and absorbed in other departments with the conditions attached therein.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that the respondent – employees would not be entitled to pay protection for higher pay-scale, as directed by the learned Single Judge and hence, it is urged by her that the present appeal may be allowed by setting aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Per contra, learned advocate Ms.Pandya, appearing for the respondent – employees has submitted that the impugned directions allowing the writ petition in part, by the learned Single Judge may not be interfered with, as all the employees, who have been declared surplus are to be absorbed by protecting their basic pay as well as the higher pay-scale, which they had received in the Corporation. In support of her submissions, she has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court dated 08.10.1999 passed in Special Civil Application No.6373 of 1999. She has also placed reliance on one of the Resolutions dated 15.09.2008 passed by the Agricultural and Corporation Department and has submitted that in a similar case, one of the employees of the Corporation on being declared surplus, has been absorbed with pay protection. She has further submitted that there are other employees also, who have been extended the same benefits, as directed by the learned Single Judge. Thus, it is urged that the present appeal may not be entertained.
We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.
The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition in part by recording thus : -
“18. In view of above, the petition partly succeeds. It is held that the erstwhile employees i.e. the surplus incumbents of the GFDC are entitled to protection of their pay in the higher payscale if any as may have been drawn by them on the date of closure of the corporation. Accordingly such surplus incumbents shall be paid the consequential benefits within three months from the date of receipt of the writ of this Court. The reasoning aforesaid will apply to all the employees of the erstwhile corporation who were drawing the higher grade pay-scale, including those who were absorbed in different government departments without being declared as surplus. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs.”
Thus, the issue only confines to the “pay protection of the higher pay-scale”, which the respondent – employee had received while they were serving in the Corporation and thereafter, they have been declared surplus. The Gujarat Fisheries Development Corporation Limited issued the Circular dated 06.07.1998 since it was being closed down for its employees either to seek voluntary retirement or on being declared as surplus, they would be absorbed in other departments on the conditions, as mentioned in the said circular. One of the conditions of the circular is condition No.5, which will govern the issue, which has been raised before us. The said condition specifically stipulates that the “basic pay” of the surplus employees / officers will be protected, whereas in case they are appointed in other department, “the higher pay-scale”, which they have already received will not be protected. This vital aspect, which governs the issue has not been considered by the learned Single Judge. It is not in dispute that the basic pay of the respondent – employees are protected.
However, the respondent – employees have specifically contended that even after such conditions, other employees have already been granted the benefit of pay protection of higher pay-scale.
If such is the case, the appellant – State, upon inquiry, in case found that other employees have been granted the pay protection of higher pay-scale also, the same shall be extended to the members of the respondent – Union.
So far as the reliance placed by learned advocate Ms.Pandya, on the judgment as well as the circular is concerned, the same will not apply in the facts of the case as in the present case, the Circular dated 06.07.1998 contains a specific condition regulating the protection of “basic pay” as well as protection of “Higher Pay-Scale”.
It will be open for the respondent – employees to approach the State Government by filing a representation naming those employees, who have been granted the pay protection of higher pay- scale also, which they have received in the Corporation. If such representation is made, as mentioned hereinabove, the appellant – State authority shall examine the same and if it is found that the pay protection of the higher pay-scale is being extended to co-employees / colleagues of the respondent-employees, the same shall also be extended to the members of the respondent Union.
With these observations, the present Letters Patent Appeal is disposed of.