IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 1852 of 2004 For Approval and Signature: HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the concerned : NO Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tribunals? -------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF GUJARAT Versus B.L. TRIVEDI & ANR. -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. Special Civil Application No. 1852 of 2004 MR DIPEN DESAI, AGP for the Petitioner MR IS SUPEHIA for Respondent No. 1 MR JM BAROT for MR HS MUNSHAW for Respondent No. 2 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT Date of decision: 27/08/2004 ORAL JUDGEMENT Heard the learned advocates. The petition has come up for hearing on interim relief. However, learned advocates agree that the petition be heard and finally disposed of. The petitioner - State Government challenges the judgment and order dated 16th June, 2003 passed by the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Appeal No.19/1997. The respondent No.1, a retired Talati-cum-Mantri (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant') appointed under the District Panchayat, Amreli, preferred the above referred Appeal No.19/1997 before the Tribunal. The appellant claimed that, on reaching the age of superannuation, he had retired from service on 31st August, 1988. He was, therefore, not aware of the scheme for higher pay scale framed by the State Government under its Resolution dated 5th July, 1991 and substituted by the Government Resolution dated 16th August, 1994. It was the claim of the appellant that he was entitled to the higher pay scale under the said Resolutions, and that his request was turned down by the respondent No.2, District Panchayat erroneously on the ground that the appellant had earned the selection grade. The said appeal came to be allowed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has directed the petitioner State Government to give the benefit of the scheme of higher pay scale to the appellant. Learned AGP Mr.Desai has submitted that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal in the subject matter. The order made by the Tribunal is without the authority of law. It, therefore, requires to be quashed and set aside. He has relied upon Rule 11 of the Gujarat Civil Service Tribunal Act, 1972 and the Schedule to the said Act. The said Rule 11 provides for appeal to the Tribunal by a specified civil servant against an original or appellate order or decision made by any officer or authority other than the State Government with respect to any of the matters specified in the Schedule. The Schedule enumerates 13 subjects. Thus, only in the said 13 subjects the appeal shall lie to the Tribunal. Mr.Desai has submitted that the grant of higher pay scale or the refusal thereof is not included in the said Schedule. The Tribunal, therefore, had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the appeal preferred by the respondent. Learned advocate Mr.Supehia concedes that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is confined to the subjects referred to in the Schedule to the Act. He also concedes that the subject of grant of higher pay scale is not covered by the said Schedule. In above view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal is ex facie beyond its jurisdiction and is passed without the authority of law. The present petition is, therefore, allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 16th June, 2003 passed by the Tribunal in Appeal No.19/1997 is quashed and set aside. The Appeal No.19/1997 preferred by the respondent No.1 shall stand rejected on the ground of jurisdiction alone. Rule is made absolute. The parties shall bear their own cost. It is clarified that the claim of the respondent No.1 for higher pay scale has not been examined on merits. The respondent No.1, therefore, shall have liberty to take appropriate legal proceeding in the said subject matter. ( Ms. R.M.Doshit, J. ) /sakkaf