RAVATBHAI AALABHAI KHACHAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
LAWS(GJH)-2013-3-110
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on March 04,2013

Ravatbhai Aalabhai Khachar Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)HEARD Mr. Vijay Nangesh, learned advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Neeraj Soni, learned AGP for the State Authorities.
(2.)LEARNED advocate for the petitioners states that the petitioners were appointed on the post of Tracer -cum -Clerk in the year starting from 1975 in the pay -scale of Rs.260 -400 then prevailing. It is the case of the petitioners that they ought to have been given the separate seniority as Tracer and even their pay at the time of revision of pay on 01.01.986 ought to have been in the pay -scale of Rs.1150 -1500. It is also contended that the next promotion of the petitioners ought to have been in the channel of Assistant Draftsman, Draftsman and Head Draftsman, since in other departments, for Tracers this is the channel of promotion, and the pay -scales are also on higher side. It is also contended that the petitioners, though appointed by the name Tracer -cum -Clerk, are doing the work as Tracers only and under these circumstances, the petitioners ought to be assigned that pay -scale and even separate seniority and their promotion should be on the posts as mentioned above.
Learned AGP Mr. Soni has referred to the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondents State Authorities along with the statement annexed thereto and has contended that in effect the petitioners want their original appointment be changed retrospectively, which Government cannot accept. It is therefore contended that the petition be dismissed.

(3.)HAVING heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having gone through the record, I find that the petitioners were appointed as Tracer -cum -Clerk in the pay -scale of Rs.260 -400 then prevailing. Even on the basis of the statement annexed with the affidavit in reply, it transpires that their further promotion was as Senior Clerk and Head Clerk. The grievance of the petitioners that they ought to have been given the pay -scale of Rs.1150 -1500 as on 01.01.1986, cannot be accepted since in the revision of pay effective from 01.01.1986, the pre -revised pay -scale of Rs.260 -400 is revised to Rs.950 -1500. It is not in dispute that all the petitioners are granted revision of pay on 01.01.1986 in the pay -scale of Rs.950 -1500, which is the corresponding revised pay. The claim of the petitioners is that the revised pay on 01.01.1986 ought to have been in the pay -scale of Rs.1150 -1500 instead of Rs.950 -1500. It would mean that in effect the petitioners want that their appointment ought to have been treated not in the pay -scale of Rs.260 -400 but in the higher pay -scale. The petitioners cannot be permitted to challenge their appointment, on the ground that even the designation ought to have been referred different and they ought to have been given pay -scale of that designation, on which they are not appointed. Comparison is made by the petitioner with the Tracers of other departments but that would not take their case further since the petitioners were appointed by Agriculture Department on the post of Tracer -cum -Clerk in the pay -scale of Rs.260 -400. Thus, this contention stands rejected. So far the nature of work is concerned, this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot take into consideration what exactly is the nature of work performed and what can be the pay -scale for that. Consistently, the post of Tracer -cum -Clerk in the Agriculture Department is treated in pay -scale of Rs.260 -400 then prevailing, with appropriate revision from time to time. Under these circumstances, I do not find any force in the petition and the petitioners are not entitled to any relief.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.