Suresh A. Bhambhani vs State of Gujarat and Others

A.L. Dave, J.—Rule. Mr. Nirag Pathak, learned Assistant Government, waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No. 1 and Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in Special Civil Application No. 7686 of 2010. Mr. Rashesh Rindani, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent-State in Special Civil Application No. 7796 of 2010.

The petitioners in these two petitions are employees, who were denied the benefit of higher grade pay-scale receivable by them due to stagnation in the service. They were denied the benefit on the ground of disciplinary action against them, which was initiated subsequent to the date of entitlement. The question, therefore, that arises before this Court is whether an employee can be denied the higher grade pay-scale in cases where no departmental proceedings are pending against the employee on the date of entitlement. This question was dealt with by this Court while dealing with Special Civil Application No. 6996 of 2010 by order dated 2nd August, 2010.

There is unanimity amongst the learned advocates representing the parties that on the date of entitlement of the petitioners, there were no departmental proceedings pending. This Court, by the above referred order dated 2nd August, 2010 in Special Civil Application No. 6996 of 2010, had taken a view that such benefit cannot be denied when there is no departmental proceedings pending on the date of entitlement. These matters are, therefore, squarely covered by the said order.

As a consequence, orders impugned in both the petitions denying the benefit to the petitioners are hereby quashed and the petitioners shall be granted benefit of higher grade pay-scale from their respective dates of entitlement. Learned advocate for the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 7796 of 2010 does not press relief sought in paragraph 13(B) and the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 7686 of 2010 does not press the relief sought in paragraph 17(B). The petitions stand allowed accordingly. Rule is made absolute in both the petitions. No costs.