C/SCA/14134/2016 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14134 of 2016 ========================================================== DHIRAJLAL DHANJIBHAI KARIA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================================== Appearance: KHUSHBU D CHHAYA(8093) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS URVASHI PUROHIT, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA Date : 30/06/2025 ORAL ORDER 1. Admitted facts of the present case are as follows:-. 1.1. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Driver in the year 1994. His services was terminated on 21.7.1997, as a result of which, he raised a dispute under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act in Reference (LCR) No.86 of 1998. 1.2. The Labour Court after considering the matter passed an award on 7.4.2006 holding that his termination was illegal and directed his reinstatement with continuity of service. The Labour Court, however, did not grant back-wages. 1.3. The respondent, by virtue of the award of continuity of service granted by the Labour Court, considered his initial date of appointment as 25.12.1994, but by applying Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, granted him the regularization with effect from 21.7.2007, though the petitioner was entitled to this benefit with effect from 25.12.2004. Page 1 of 5 C/SCA/14134/2016 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025 1.4. As a consequence, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No.9983 of 2016 and this Court by an order dated 6.3.2020, held that the respondent ought to fix the Grade Pay of the petitioner with effect from 25.12.2004 instead of 21.7.2007. The operative portion of the order reads as follows: “11. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed and the respondent is directed to fix grade pay of the petitioner with effect from 25.12.2004 in stead of 21.07.2007 counting the service of the petitioner continuous from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 25.12.1994. The respondent is directed to pay arrears and incidental benefits accordingly. Rule is made absolute, however, without costs.” Thus, it is also submitted that this order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court was affirmed in Letters Patent Appeal No.840 of 2020 vide order dated 16.2.2023. 1.5. It is, thus, clear from the above that the service of the petitioner stood regularized with effect from 25.12.2004 and not from 21.7.2007. 2. The pay scale of the petitioner also was re-fixed in the Pay Band of Rs.6120/- with effect from 1.4.2007 by an office order dated 1.1.2010. 3. Subsequently, by another office order dated 29.10.2015, the pay band of the petitioner was reduced to Rs.5830/- with effect from 1.4.2007. Being aggrieved by the reduction of pay C/SCA/14134/2016 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025 band from Rs.6120/- to Rs.5830/-, the petitioner has presented this petition challenging the office order dated 29.10.2015, which has reduced his pay band. 4. Reply has been filed by the first respondent, in which it is stated as follows: “10. It is respectfully submitted that in the case of petitioner, he was regularized on 1/4/2007 and hence, his pay fixation was required to be done manually. However, wrongly considering his date regularization as 1/1/2006 instead of of 1/4/2007, his pay fixation was made to the pay of 6120/- instead of 5830/-, which was a bonafide mistake and as and when it came to the knowledge of concerned authority, the same was rectified by passing an order on 29/10/2015 and copy whereof was duly sent to the petitioner. 11. It is further humbly submitted that the petitioner by filling an option form 1/2/2016 had admitted that his rectified remuneration has been accepted to him from 1/4/2007 and he has accepted to continue the pay grade of 5200-20200. A copy of said option form is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE-R/1. It is submitted that petitioner has also given an undertaking on 1/2/2016 that due to pay fixation, if any excess pays are found then he is ready to reimburse the same to the Government from his gratuity or from any other amounts, which are receivable by him. A copy of said undertaking dated 1/2/2016 is annexed hereto as ANNEXURE-R/2.” 5. As could be seen from the above avements, the respondent basically states that the petitioner was regularized on 1.4.2007 and his pay band was fixed by wrongly considering the date of regularization as 1.1.2006. It is, therefore, contended that the petitioner was entitled to the pay band only of Rs.5830/- and not Rs.6120/-. 6. As could be seen from the above, the reliance is sought to C/SCA/14134/2016 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025 be placed on the option form which the petitioner had given on 1.2.2016, whereby he had undertaken that if the fixation of pay band was wrong, he would be prepared for subjecting himself to a recovery. 7. At the outset, it is to be stated here that this contention of the respondent cannot be accepted in light of the earlier litigation between the parties in Special Civil Application No.9983 of 2016, which was confirmed in Letters Patent Appeal No.840 of 2020. The Coordinate Bench of this Court has categorically concluded that the petitioner was entitled for fixation of grade pay from 25.12.2004 and not from 21.7.2007 and this was on the premise that the petitioner was appointed in 1994, and on completion of 10 years, he would be entitled to be regularized on the basis of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. This order of the Coordinate Bench being confirmed by the Division Bench, would result in the date of regularization of petitioner to be from 25.12.2004. As a consequence, the fixation of pay band of the petitioner at Rs.6120/- as per the office order dated 1.1.2010 with effect from 1.4.2007 cannot be found fault with. 8. The reduction of pay scale by the office order dated 29.10.2015 on the premise that the petitioner’s date of regularization was 1.4.2007 cannot be accepted, since it would be contrary to the decision rendered by this Court in Special Civil Application No.9983 of 2016, which has concluded that the petitioner’s service was regularized on completion of 10 years C/SCA/14134/2016 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025 from 25.12.1994, being the initial date of appointment. If the petitioner’s initial appointment has been confirmed as 25.12.1994, the consequential benefit that the petitioner would get as per the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 cannot be denied and since this Court has held that he was entitled for fixation of grade pay with effect from 25.12.2004 and not from 21.7.2007, the fixation of pay band of Rs.6120/- would be correct and not the pay band of Rs.5830/-. 9. Consequently, the impugned order is quashed. The petitioner shall be held entitled for the benefit of the pay band of Rs.6120/- with effect from 1.4.2007 as per the office order dated 1.1.2010. The petition stands ALLOWED accordingly. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Sd/- (NSSG,J) OMKAR Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: OMKAR CHHAGANLAL MAHAWAR(HC00201), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 01/07/2025 11:13:14