SCA/164820/2001 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1648 of 2001 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= VAGHELA MUKESHKUMAR MAVJIBHAI & 1 - Petitioner(s) Versus UNION OF INDIA & 4 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR MEHUL S SHAH for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2. MR RM CHHAYA for Respondent(s) : 1 - 5. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER Date : 20/11/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT) SCA/164820/2001 2/5 JUDGMENT This petition arises from the claim made by two of the technicians employed in the Directorate of Lighthouses & Lightships under the Ministry of Surface Transport in the service of the Central Government for replacement scale under the recommendations made by the 5th Central Pay Commission. 2. The technicians employed under the Directorate of Lighthouses and Lightships carried a pay-scale of Rs. 1400-2300. Prior to the pay revision pursuant to the report of the 4th Central Pay Commission, the pay-scale of the technicians was equated with that of Head Light Keeper. Under the recommendations made by the 4th Central Pay Commission, the Head Light Keepers were placed in a pay-scale higher than that of the technicians, i.e. Rs. 1640-2900. While considering the claim of the technicians for parity with Head Light Keeper, the 5th Central Pay Commission considered this aspect. Considering the inadequate avenues and promotional chances available to the technicians the Commission recommended that “30% of the posts of technicians in each discipline may be placed in the replacement scale of pay corresponding to Rs. 1640-2900. The remaining 70% of the posts being retained in the replacement scale of pay corresponding to Rs. 1400-2300.” 3. It appears that the aforesaid recommendation has been accepted by the Central Government in toto. The cadre of SCA/164820/2001 3/5 JUDGMENT technician under the Directorate of Lighthouses and Lightships is divided into 4 disciplines namely; General, Electrical, Diesel and Electronics. Initially, there was only one cadre of technician, i.e. General. With the development of science and technology, the other disciplines, viz. Electrical, Diesel and Electronics were gradually constituted. The consequence is that the technicians in Diesel and Electronics cadre are fewer in number and are far junior to the technicians in General and Electrical disciplines. While implementing the aforesaid recommendation, the Central Government has placed 30% of the technicians in each discipline in replacement pay-scale corresponding to the scale of Rs. 1640-2900, i.e. Rs. 5500-9000. The result is that the technicians in Diesel and Electronics disciplines, who have received the benefit of higher pay-scale are junior to some of the technicians in the General and Electrical disciplines who did not receive the higher pay-scale at the relevant time. Feeling aggrieved by this anomaly, the petitioners, who are technicians in the General and Electrical discipline respectively, have preferred the present writ petition. 4. It is the claim of the petitioners that the seniority of technicians under the Directorate of Lighthouses and Lightships is common and the promotions are made according to such common seniority. The benefit of the higher pay-scale of Rs. 5500-9000 shall also be granted keeping in view the common seniority. SCA/164820/2001 4/5 JUDGMENT 5. Mr. Shah has appeared for the petitioners. He has demonstrated that the manner in which the above referred recommendation has been implemented causes injustice to the technicians in General and Electrical disciplines who are far senior to the technicians in Diesel and Electronics and disciplines. He has submitted that it is, therefore, imperative that the aforesaid recommendation is accepted and implemented keeping in view the common seniority of the technicians which otherwise also is the rule of seniority and further promotion. 6. We are unable to agree with Mr. Shah. Whether or not to accept the recommendations made by the Pay Commission, whether to accept it in toto or with certain modification are the matters of policy with which ordinarily the Court would not interfere. So long as the policy adopted by the Government is implemented uniformly, the Court of law is not required to interfere with such policy or the implementation thereof. In the present case, it is admitted that the Central Government has accepted the recommendations made by the 5th Pay Commission. It has granted the benefit of higher pay-scale of Rs. 5500-9000 to 30% of the technicians in each discipline. May be that in actual working out, some technicians though senior in one discipline may get the benefit later than the technicians in other discipline who may be junior. Such discrepancy is in-built in the policy and has to be accepted. We do not agree that the decision to give the benefit of SCA/164820/2001 5/5 JUDGMENT higher pay-scale to the technicians in each discipline is arbitrary or discriminatory. To us it appears that the grievance made by the petitioners is misconceived. The reliefs prayed for cannot be granted. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. The parties will bear their own costs. [ Ms. R.M. Doshit, J. ] [ K.M. Thaker, J. ] rmr.