Umedbhai Chhaganbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat

A.Y. Kogje, J

[1] This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioners for following relief:-

“(B) Be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order and/or direction and be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to take appropriate decision and to pass appropriate orders for granting / applying the pay scale (pre revised pay scale)i.e. Rs. 330-560 which was the prevailing pay scale prescribed for the post of Livestock Inspector’ posts, the same pay scale may kindly be ordered to be made applicable to the petitioners from their respective dates of appointments as per tabular form statements annexed at ANNEXURE and the respondents may kindly be further directed to pass appropriate order for granting the NPPA to the petitioners from the respective dates of the appointments and the Hon’ble court may kindly issue appropriate writ, order and/or direction upon the concerned respondent authorities to pass appropriate order for revising and for granting the 1°t higher pay scale to the petitioners i.e. pay scale of 1350-2200 which came to be revised to 5000 -8000 as per Gujarat Civil Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 1998 and the respondents may kindly be further directed to pass appropriate order order to apply the revised wages as per Gujarat Civil Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2009; Gujarat Civil Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2016 and the ‘Last Pay Drawn’ by the petitioners on the last date of respective dates of services may kindly be ordered to be recalculated and difference of wages, amount of of NPPA and difference of salary and difference of amount of Higher Pay Scale which would be made applicable to the petitioners may kindly be ordered to be paid to the petitioner with 12% interest and the pension, gratuity and all the retirement dues may may kindly be ordered to be revised accordingly and the difference of the same may kindly be paid with 12% interest.

[2] It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners who entered into the employment as Junior Field Assistants on the pay-scale of 260-400, where in fact, were carrying out the work of Livestock Inspectors who were in the pay-scale of 330-560 at the relevant point of time.

[3] Learned advocate submitted that as the petitioners realized that the nature of work performed by the Livestock Inspectors is identical to that which was performed by the petitioners as Junior Field Assistants, they started agitating the issue for claiming the parity in pay-scale and benefits with the Livestock Inspector, Class-III.

[4] It appears that a Circular came to be issued by the Director of Livestock on 31.12.2012 by accepting the claims of the Junior Field Assistants and in the circular provided for grant of benefit accordingly.

[5] It is the case of the petitioners that though by the aforesaid circular, the claim of the petitioners seeking parity in pay-scale and benefits was accepted, still the entitlement of the petitioners would rise from the day whey they started working as Junior Field Assistants, but actually carrying out the work as Livestock Inspector and therefore, applicability of the circular should be made from such date.

[6] The Court has taken into consideration the documents placed on record, where it is indicated that in the year 1989 when the petitioners and like were appointed as Junior Field Assistants, the same was for a temporary period of four months for meeting with the requirement of manpower to give effect to a special scheme for which fully qualified Livestock Inspectors were not available. To tide over the immediate requirement to carry out the work under the scheme by some rigorous training, the petitioners were inducted as a part of the scheme as Junior Field Assistants. This status of Junior Field Assistants and the pay scale was accepted by the petitioners with open eyes at the relevant point of time and now the petitioners have made the claim when the petitioners have retired after completion of their respective service and attained the age of superannuation.

[7] Though the circular dated 31.12.2012 is accepting the stand of the petitioners, but there is nothing to indicate that such a circular has a retrospective effect as there is nothing on record especially within the circular with regard to its retrospectivity, ordinarily the application to such circular/order will have to be in prospective. However, at this stage, when an attention is drawn of this Court to the representation dated 25.07.2022, the Court leaves it upon the petitioners to pursue such representation with the authorities concerned. The authorities may answer to such representation in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Needless to say that, the Court has not entered into the merits or demerits of the case.

[8] With the aforesaid direction, the petition stands disposed of. Direct service is permitted.