Employee's Right To Promised Pay Scale Benefits Can't Be Negated By Administrative Delays: Gujarat HC

Background

The petitioner, a registered association for work assistants, represented individuals initially employed in various roles like Karkoon, mistry, technical assistant, and sub-overseer. Following a 1984 government resolution, these roles were merged into a single cadre—Work Assistant—with recruitment rules introduced in 1985. Despite this restructuring, the State allegedly failed to establish a specific pay scale for the new cadre, causing the petitioners to receive the scale meant for sub-overseers instead.

Additionally, a 1987 resolution purportedly entitled the members to higher pay scales and promotional avenues, but the State delayed implementing these adjustments. Consequently, affected employees received improper pay grades, faced recovery of previously disbursed salaries, and missed out on higher pay scales over prolonged service periods. After prolonged efforts, including a representation to the State in 2015, the Association filed the present petition for redressal.

Arguments

Mr. G.M. Joshi, Senior Counsel for the petitioners, argued that the State's failure to provide timely pay-scale upgrades and promotions denied petitioners their statutory entitlements. He emphasized that while the cadre merger was transparent, the promised recruitment rules and promotional benefits were never realized, resulting in stagnation within the Work Assistant cadre. The petitioners contended that the members were entitled to the scales of Additional Assistant Engineer and Deputy Engineer based on service length, citing specific government resolutions supporting their claim. Mr. Joshi also challenged the legality of salary recoveries imposed by the State, stating they were arbitrary and unjust.

Ms. Pooja Ashar, Assistant Government Pleader, responded for the State, asserting that the merger and resulting pay adjustments were conducted according to established recruitment rules and government orders. She claimed that promotions could only occur per vacancy availability, subject to the Rules of 1985. Relying on the judgment in LPA No. 380 of 2016 (pertaining to temporary work-charge employees), she argued that the benefits sought were neither feasible nor intended for the cadre involved. The State also argued that the petition was time-barred, considering petitioners had acquiesced to their rights by accepting their pay scales since 1990.

Court's Reasoning

Firstly, the court observed that the creation of the Work Assistant cadre included provisions for promotions, as per government resolutions from 1984 and 1987. Despite satisfying promotion requirements, the petitioners were not granted these benefits, resulting in a delay in grade advancements. The State's defense, based on vacancy-dependent promotions, was dismissed by the court, noting that the promotions should have been systematically available by 1990. Secondly, the court held that salary recoveries imposed on the petitioners were unjustified. The State's finance department had issued a resolution in 2002 against retrospective salary adjustments unless specified by policy, undermining the basis for these recoveries. The court cited that the deductions conflicted with the intention of government resolutions promoting fair advancement and compensation for tenure.

Thirdly, on the issue of delay, the court referenced the principle of continuing wrong, explaining that delays in addressing grievances related to service benefits do not negate the petitioners' right to relief. It concluded that petitioners were timely in their 2015 representation and subsequent petition filing, considering the grievances as ongoing injuries. Lastly, the court clarified that the cited LPA No. 380 of 2016 did not apply, as it pertained to temporary work-charge employees rather than the permanent cadre of Work Assistants. The case before the court involved members who had met the criteria for regular service benefits under distinct recruitment rules, thus distinguishing their claims from those adjudicated in the cited appeal. The High Court directed the State to grant the petitioners higher pay scales as per their years of service—either under the 9-18-27-year scheme or the 12-24-year scheme, whichever was relevant. Thus, the petition was allowed to the said extent.

Decided on: 24-10-2024

Citation: R/Special Civil Application No. 10151 of 2016 (The Work Assistant Association PWD Road and Building Department v. State of Gujarat & Anr.)

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. G.M. Joshi, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vyom H. Shah

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms. Pooja Ashar, Assistant Government Pleader

Click Here To Read/Download The Order