This is an oral judgment dismissing the Municipality's special civil application to quash a Tribunal's order awarding second higher pay-scale arrears to a retired teacher, finding the Tribunal's consideration of delay and award of arrears justified.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
SCA/9245/2011
1/3
JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9245 of 2011 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 611 of 2012
For Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
=========================================================
Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?To be referred to the Reporter or not ?Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the 4 constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?
5Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
HANSABEN K PARVADIA - Petitioner(s)
Versus
MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER & 5 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR AJ SHASTRIfor Petitioner(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1, 3, 6,
MRHAMESHCNAIDU for Respondent(s) : 2,
MR PRANAV DAVE AGP for Respondent(s) : 4 - 5.
=========================================================
CORAM :HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date : 05/07/2012
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner-Hansaben K. Parvadia has preferred
the petition for the modification in the order
passed by the Tribunal in Application No.67 of
SCA/9245/2011
2/3
JUDGMENT
2012, whereby the arrears was ordered to be paid
from 15.07.2007, instead of from the date of her
eligibility i.e. 14.02.2000 of second higher pay-
scale, whereas, the Corporation has filed the
petition to quash and set aside the impugned
order of the Tribunal.
2. Learned counsel for the Corporation has contended that the school, where the original applicantteacher was serving, is run by the State Government, therefore, State Government has to approve the pay-scale and other benefits.
3. The Tribunal, while considering the case of the original applicant-teacher observed that it is not in dispute that original applicant was appointed as teacher on 17.08.1978 and first higher pay-scale was granted to her on 14.02.1989. The Tribunal has also observed that as per GR dated 16.08.1994, the original claimant is entitled for second higher pay-scale on 14.02.2000 and accordingly, the pay fixation has been made by the DEO on 08.08.2005 and the same has been approved by the Local Fund. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal has ordered to grant the second higher pay-scale from 14.02.2000 alongwith consequential benefits including pension.
4. It is pertinent to note that the Tribunal has while passing the order has rightly taken into consideration the fact that the second higher
SCA/9245/2011
3/3
JUDGMENT
pay-scale was due to the original applicant in
the year 2000. Further it is required to be noted
that fixation of the second higher pay-scale has
been made on 08.08.2005. However, the original
applicant has filed the application before the
Tribunal on 15.07.2010 in respect of the same.
Thus, the Tribunal after considering the delay in
making application by the original applicant has
rightly granted the arrears from 15.07.2007.
Further it is required to be noted that the
demand of the original applicant was legitimate,
however, on account of delay in pursuing the
demand, the Tribunal has rightly granted the
arrears from 15.07.2007 i.e. before three years
of filing of the application.
5. In that view of the matter, the order passed by
the Tribunal is just, proper and correct. There
is no illegality, much less any perversity in the
findings recorded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal
has rightly considered the facts and circumstance
of the case and evidence on record and thus, no
interference is called for. It is however
clarified that the limitation period as
prescribed by the Tribunal for the payment of
arrears will commence from the date of this order
i.e.90 days from today.
[K.S.JHAVERI, J.]
..mitesh..
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal's order granting arrears from the date of application merits interference by this Court.
Whether the Municipality's objection regarding State Government approval for pay-scale benefits justifies quashing the Tribunal's order.
HANSABEN K PARVADIA
MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER
KS JHAVERI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court