Karmanbhai Madhabhai Sakhat vs State Of Gujarat & 2 Other(S)

A.S. Supehia, J

In all these petitions, petitioners are similarly placed in terms of the grievance who have made identical prayer. All the petitions were heard together and are treated for disposal by this common order.

1.1 Heard learned advocate Mr.Vishal Thakkar for the petitioners in all the petitions, learned Assistant Government Pleaders in the respective writ petitions for the respondent – State.

The prayers extracted from the first captioned Special Civil Application No.403 of 2021 read as under:-

“(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or _ direction, directing the respondents to sanction the pension of the petitioner as the petitioner being entitled to the same, in the interest of justice and equity ;

(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or _ direction, directing the respondents to fix the pension of the petitioner as per the prevailing pay commission and basic pay, DA and all other allowance as paid to other permanent workmen/employees with increments and_ perks available to the petitioner from time to time, and further pay the arrears of the Same to the petitioner along with interest accrued thereon in the interest of justice and equity;

(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to fix the salary to the petitioner as per the prevailing pay commission from the commission of respective pay commission to the petitioner from time to time, and further pay the arrears of the same to the petitioner along with interest in the interest of justice and equity;

(D) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to fix the pension of the petitioner as per the prevailing pay commission and basic pay, DA and all other allowance as paid to other permanent workmen/employees with increments and_ perks available to the petitioner from time to time, and further pay the arrears of the same to the petitioner along with interest accrued thereon as well as to fix the salary to the petitioner as per the prevailing pay commission from the commission of respective pay commission to the petitioner from time to time, and further pay the arrears of the same to the petitioner along with interest In the interest of justice and equity, pending admission, hearing and disposal of the present petition.”

The precise case of the petitioners appears to be that though they have been paid the benefit of Fourth Pay Commission pay-scales, and they are entitled to the Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Pay Commission recommendations and as well as revision of pension.

In support of their prayers, the petitioners have relied on decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Jagjitsingh [AIR (SC) 2016 0 5176] and Rattan Lal v. State of Haryana [(1985) 4 SCC 43] as well as of this Court in S. A. Jaffai v. State of Gujarat [2011 (2) GLR 1223].

While the petitioners have approached this Court with the aforesaid case and the prayer, it is not in dispute that the grievance of the petitioners has not been considered by the authorities. When the petitioners are seeking writ of mandamus, it is a trite requirement that before writ of mandamus could be issued, the petitioners have made a demand before the authority concerned with regard to their grievance and the same is gone into and considered by the authority concerned by applying mind. It was stated that the competent authority to consider the grievance of the petitioners would be Commissioner of Municipalities.

Therefore, it would be appropriate to dispose of the present petitions by directing each of the petitioners to make a representation with regard to the grievance and the prayer advanced in the present petition before the Commissioner of Municipalities.

6.1 It is directed that when such representation is made, the same shall be considered and decided by the competent authority of the respondents within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the representation.

6.2 It is clarified that this Court has not entered into the merits of the case.

Petitions stand disposed of in terms of the above observations and directions.