Maganlal Mohanlal Chauhan & Ors vs State Of Gujarat & Ors

Biren Vaishnav, J

Heard Mr.Anand Gogia learned advocate for the appellants and Mr.Hemang Shah learned advocate appearing for respondent nos.2, 4, 5 and 6.

Challenge in this petition is to the order of the learned Single Judge dated 22.02.2023.

Briefly stated, the facts indicate that the petitioners who are the appellants before us, approached this Court by filing the captioned petition with the following prayers:

“(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to hold, declare and direct that, the Petitioners are entitled to get the revised pension as per the scale recommended in the Shetty Pay Commission report under the Government Resolution dated 13.04.2009 and 01.11.2000;

(C) Lordships be pleased to hold, declare and direct that the Petitioners irrespective of their date of retirement viz pre 01.04.2003 retirees, are entitled to revision in pension at par those petitioners who retired post 01.04.2003 along with arrears etc. and the respondents may not cause discrimination between pre 01.04.2003 or post retirees of 01.04.2003 for purposes of pension;”

It was the case of the petitioners as pointed out by Mr.Gogia learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants were employees who were retired pre-01.04.2003 from the service of the district judiciary. It is not in dispute that all of them were retired pre-01.04.2003.

The prayer in the petition therefore is, by virtue of the Shetty Pay Commission’s report with effect from 01.04.2003, an artificial distinction was drawn between two group of retirees pre-01.04.2003 and post-01.04.2003. This, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Mr.Hemang Shah learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.2 and 4 to 6 would draw the attention of this Court to the resolution of the Government of Gujarat dated 29.10.2015 which brought into force the pay revision as per the recommendations of Shetty Pay Commission.

Reading the resolution would indicate that the pay revision and recommendation of the Shetty Pay Commission was given effect from 01.04.2003 to 31.12.2005.

Perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge and the prayers when compared, would, in our opinion rightly indicate that the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that in absence of the challenge to the resolution and the cutoff date so prescribed in the resolution, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the cut-off date was violative of the decision of the Supreme Court in case of All Manipur Pensioners Association vs. The State of Manipur & Ors. reported in AIR 2019 SC 3338, cannot be accepted.

For the sake of brevity, the reasonings of the learned Single Judge reads as under:

“6. Thus, the recommendation of the Shetty Pay Commission has been implemented from 1st April, 2003 and, accordingly, the benefits have been extended to such employees who have retired after the aforesaid date. As the prayer clauses noticed herein above suggest that the petitioners have not challenged the cut-off date or the implementation of the recommendation of the Shetty Pay Commission with effect from 1st April, 2003 and, however, they are claiming the benefits of such pay commission which has been implemented after the said date. Since the issue with regard to the implementation of the Shetty Pay Commission is already laid quietus by the Supreme Court and recommendation of the said commission is already accepted with effect from 1st April, 2003, this Court cannot accede to the request made by the petitioners for granting them the benefits of revision of pay dehors the cut- off date. The judgment, on which, reliance is placed by the petitioners in the case of All Manipur Pensioners Association (supra) will not apply to the facts of the present case since in the present case, the recommendation of the Shetty Pay Commission itself has been accepted and validated by the Apex Court from the date of 1st April, 2003. The observations made by the Apex Court in the case of All Manipur Pensioners Association (supra) cannot, in any manner, apply to the present case, as in the present case, the recommendations of Shetty Pay Commission are exclusively made applicable to the staff of the judiciary and has been given effect from 1st April, 2003 which has been finalized by the Supreme Court.

Accordingly, pursuant to the orders passed by the Supreme Court as well as by this Court, the State Government, Legal Department has issued the resolution dated 2nd September, 2011 as well as the resolution dated 29th October, 2015, wherein it is specifically mentioned that the recommendation of the Shetty Pay Commission shall be given with effect from 1st April, 2003. It is specifically mentioned in Paragraph-5 of the Resolution dated 2nd September, 2011 that the employees who have retired from service during the period between 1st April, 2003 to 31st December, 2005 shall be entitled to pensionary benefits as per the Shetty Pay Commission. The resolution dated 2nd September, 2011, in paragraph1, stipulates that the pay revision as per the recommendation of the Shetty Pay Commission shall be given from 1st April, 2003 to 31st December, 2005.”

In view of the above, we find no fault with the order of the learned Single Judge. The Letters Patent Appeal is therefore dismissed.