1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.282/2002. 1. Shri M. G. Naik, Information Assistant Directorate of Information, Government of Goa, Panaji-Goa. 2. Shri Soma Mopkar, Information Assistant Directorate of Information, Government of Goa, Panaji-Goa. 3. Shri Prakash Naik, Information Assistant, Directorate of Information, Government of Goa, Panaji-Goa. 4. Sri John Aguiar, Information Assistant, Directorate of Information, Government of Goa, Panaji-Goa. 5. Smt. Fatima Almeida, Information Assistant, Directorate of Information, Government of Goa, Panaji-Goa. 6. Shri Custodio Arauzo, Information Assistant, Directorate of Information, Government of Goa, Panaji-Goa. 7. Shri Allwyn Pereira, Information Assistant, Directorate of Information, Government of Goa, 2 Panaji-Goa. .. Petitioners. Versus. 1. State of Goa through its Chief Secretary, having office at Secretariat, Panaji- Goa. 2. Director of Information, Government of Goa, Panaji-Goa. .. respondents Mr. A. F. Diniz, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms Susan Linhares, Addl. Government Advocate for the respondents. Coram :- SRI R. M. S. KHANDEPARKAR & SRI S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ. Date : - 30 th July, 2008. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. By this present petition, the petitioners are seeking directions for declaration that the petitioners as Information Assistants are entitled for the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 from the date of the demand and the date on which the respondent Department sent proposal recommending higher pay scale and all consequential benefits. In fact 3 and undisputedly, the petitioners had filed earlier writ petition bearing number W.P.No.273/2000, which was disposed of on 3.10.2000 with the following order : “ Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the light of the averments contained in the affidavit filed on behalf of the Director of Information and Ex-officio Joint Secretary (Information), dated 16th September, 2000, he seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the petition. Permission granted. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. ” 3. The learned Advocate for the petitioners has placed on record the affidavit which was filed by the Director of Information in said writ petition and paragraphs 4 and 5 thereof read as under : “4. I say that since matters relating to representations of pay scales are dealt with by the Finance Department, the same was sent to the Finance Department. While examining the matter, the Finance Department has observed that a similar proposal for upgrading pay scales was received by the Finance Department and the same was placed before the Anomaly Committee. It was also observed that the duties and responsibilities of the above personnel were explained to the Anomaly Committee. However, Anomaly Committee did not accept the same and it was rejected. I say that I crave leave to refer and rely upon the minutes of the Anomaly Committee dated 24.9.93. 4 5. I say that this decision about the rejection of the representation by Finance Department was communicated to the petitioner. I say that in view of the present petition the matter will be resubmitted to the Government for decision.” 4. The affidavit in reply filed by the respondents in the present petition, and more particularly paragraphs 6, 8, 9 and 14 thereof read as under : “ 6. With reference to para 4 of the petition, I deny that the nature of duties and responsibilities of posts in the field of journalism with Press Information Bureau, Government of India and in the State of Maharashtra as Maharashtra Information Service is the same or as that of the Information Assistants of the Government of Goa. I say that every department has their own cadre/hierarchy and therefore recruitment rules and pay scales are framed separately depending on the needs of the department. 8. With reference to para 6 of the Petition, I say that although the Department had submitted a proposal for enhancement of pay scales for Information Assistants, Translators, Assistant Information Officers and Information Officers the same was not considered by the government for genuine reasons. I say that although the Department had invited the attention of the Government to the fact that the posts of Assembly Reporters in the legislature have fixed the pay scale to Rs.5500 despite their entry qualification being only matriculation, I say 5 that the Posts of Assembly Reporters and that of Information Assistants are not the same. I say that every department has their own cadre/hierarchy and therefore recruitment rules and pay scales are framed separately depending on the needs of the department. I therefore state that the State would not be justified in granting enhanced scale to the Petitioners. I say that the Pay Scales prevailing in other Departments cannot be taken as a basis for making applicable a higher scale to the Petitioners. 9. With reference to para 7 of the petition, I say that the Anomaly Committee after considering the case of the Petitioners has rejected the proposal for enhancement of pay scale. I deny that the report relied on by the Finance Department is arbitrary or perverse. I deny that the Petitioners post and the posts under the Government of India or Maharashtra are equal or similar in all respects. 14. With reference to para 11D of the petition, I deny that this Respondent gave any assurances; I say that as stated in the Affidavit in Reply filed in Writ Petition No.273/00, the Petitioners case was resubmitted to the Government for decision but in view of opinion of the Anomaly committee, the Government took no further action in the matter.” 5. Apparently, it is clear that the respondents have not taken any decision in terms of the assurances given to this Court under affidavit filed in the earlier petition i.e. W.P. No.273/2000 more particularly in paragraph 5 thereof. 6 6. The Additional Government Advocate drew our attention in paragraph 2 of the affidavit in reply filed in this petition contending that the Anomaly Committee after considering the matter in question has held that the petitioners are not entitled for any relief in the nature which is asked for in the matter. However, the Additional Government Advocate is unable to satisfy us as to why the respondents have not complied with their assurances given by them in their affidavit filed in earlier petition on the basis of which the petitioners were permitted to withdraw the petition. Once it is clear that the petitioners were permitted to withdraw the petition solely on the basis of the assurances given by the respondents in the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents in earlier writ petition, it cannot be heard from the respondents that the respondents would not comply with the said assurances. Though in such circumstances, we refrain ourselves from taking any harsh decision in the matter against the respondents, we expect the respondents to take appropriate decision in terms of said assurances within four weeks and communicate the decision to the petitioners within a one week thereafter. 7. In view of the said directions, the petition is, accordingly, disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Court in case need arises. Rule is made absolute in above terms with no order as to costs. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on any 7 point which is sought to be raised in this petition and all issues are kept open. R. M. S. KHANDEPARKAR, J S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J SMA