Mobile View
Main Search Forums Advanced Search Disclaimer
User Queries
Gujarat High Court
B.C.Jethwa vs State on 20 July, 2010
Author: H.K.Rathod,&Nbsp;

Gujarat High Court Case Information System function loadSearchHighlight() {

var chkParamC = "txtSearch" if (chkParamC == "txtSearch") {

SearchHighlight();

document.searchhi.h.value = searchhi_string; if( location.hash.length > 1 ) location.hash = location.hash; }

}

Print

SCA/6177/2007 7/ 7 ORDER

IN

THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

SPECIAL

CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6177 of 2007

To

SPECIAL

CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6180 of 2007

=================================================

B.C.JETHWA

& 3 - Petitioner(s)

Versus

STATE

OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)

================================================= Appearance

:

MR

NK MAJMUDAR for Petitioner(s) : 1 -

4.

Mr. Sunit Shah GP with Ms. Bhavika Kotecha, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1 -

3.

=================================================

CORAM

:

HONOURABLE

MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD

Date

: 07/03/2007

ORAL

ORDER

Heard

learned Advocate Mr.NK Majmudar for the petitioners and Ms.Bhavika Kotecha, learned AGP for Respondent State Authority in this group of petitions.

As

per the case of the petitioners, petitioners were appointed as Medical Officer Class II Bonded and they have been confirmed in service on long term basis in pursuance of their passing the GPSC Examination. Grievance of the petitioners is to the effect that the respondent authority has not granted higher pay scale as per the recommendations made by the Tikku Pay Commission. It is submitted by the learned Advocate Mr. Majmudar for the petitioners that the one of petitioners has received first higher grade but rest of the petitioners have not received any higher grade benefit. He submits that they are entitled for the same from the date of their joining as ad.hoc medical officer (bonded) or on the principle of continuous officiation but the respondents are not considering their case for the same. He submits that the petitioners are entitled for the higher grade benefit as per the recommendations made by the Tiku Commission on the basis of various resolutions issued by the State Government from time to time. It is his grievance that other similarly situated employees have been granted such similar benefits with effect from the date of their joining as ad.hoc bonded medical officers. Averments made by the petitioners to that effect in para 6 of the memo of SCA No. 6177 of 2007 are reproduced as under:

?SPetitioners

state and submit that even other similarly situated Medical Officers have been granted benefit of higher pay scale considering their initial date of appointment. Thus, only petitioners are subjected to discriminatory treatment. In fact, Dr. DD Parmar, who was appointed in Irwin Hospital, Jamnagar on 23.6.1971 was granted the benefit of higher pay scale considering his initial date of appointment. Similarly, one Dr.BS Patel who came to be appointed on 13.4.1974 and who was placed at Sr. No. 233 in the seniority list of Mos has been granted the benefit of higher pay scale. Likewise, Dr.GK Virda who was appointed on 30.7.1974 and placed at Sr. No.225 in the seniority list, Dr. MB Thakkar who was appointed on 11.1.1972 and placed at Sr.No. 275 in the seniority list and Dr. DG Adheda who was appointed on 29.11.1975 and placed at Sr.No. 339 working as doctors medical officers were granted higher pay scale considering their initial date of appointment. The petitioners crave leave to refer to and rely upon the relevant record maintained by the authority in this regard at the time of hearing of this petition. If need be. In view of the above facts, petitioners also pray that they may be granted the said benefit considering their initial date of appointment. Under these circumstances, petitioners pray that suitable directions be issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners and grant benefit of higher pay scale and the concerned respondents be directed to disburse the amount with 18% interest and further direction be issued for undertaking pay fixation as junior doctors have been granted the benefit, but the petitioners are discriminated.??

Learned

Advocate Mr. Majmudar also submits that as per GR dated 15.10.1997 which is at page 52, as per fourth line, arrears of higher grade has to be paid to the petitioner as per the recommendations made by Tikku Pay Commission which will be made applicable w.e.f. 14.11.1991 and arrears of higher grade upto 16.10.1994 shall not be paid to the petitioners and from17.10.1994, petitioners are entitled for the benefit of such arrears in cash. He also submits that the petitioners have cleared their GPSC Examination in first attempt but the respondents are also not considering the said fact.

In

view of these facts and considering submissions made from both the sides, it is open for petitioners herein to make detailed representation to the respondent authority within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

As

and when such representation made by the petitioners is received by the respondent authority, respondent authority is directed to consider cases of each of the petitioners for higher pay scale as per the recommendations made by Tikku Pay Commission from the date of their joining as ad.hoc (bonded) or on the basis of the principles of continuous officiation and also consider their case for arrears in cash w.e.f. 17.10.1994 as per GR dated 15.10.1997 while keeping in view the fact that the petitioners have cleared their GPSC Examination in first attempt as submitted by learned Advocate Mr. Majmudar for petitioners and then to pass appropriate reasoned order in accordance with law within two months from the date of receiving representation from the petitioners and to communicate decision to the petitioners immediately thereafter.

In

view of these observations and directions, these petitions are disposed of at this stage without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter and with a liberty in favour of the petitioners to challenge the orders that may be made by respondents before appropriate forum in accordance with law if the orders so passed are adverse to petitioners.

Direct

Service is Permitted.

(H.K.

Rathod,J.)

Vyas

   

Top