UPASANA MAJGAONKAR Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER the Court Orders dated 29.07.2003, deciding Writ Petition No. 205 of 1999 and Writ Petition no. 357 of 1999, the Mamlatdars working with State of Goa, have filed these Petitions for the direction to State Government to extend to them benefit of pay scale of Rs.6500 -200 -10500 in terms of recommendation of Fifth Pay Commission w.e.f. 01.01.1996 along with seven other Officers belonging to that cadre and on same terms as per Order dated 08.10.2003 and 27.03.2006.

(2.) LEARNED Addl. Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents, has at the threshold, pointed out that earlier bench after hearing the arguments had adjourned the matter to enable the State Government to take appropriate decision. He submitted that very same Bench while deciding similar issue in Writ Petition nos. 322 of 1998 and 138 of 1999 on previous day, had taken a different view. He, therefore, sought adjournment. However, his request was rejected.

(3.) SHRI Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel, has submitted that because of the action on the part of the Respondents, two different pay scales have been made applicable to the same cadre i.e. cadre of Mamlatdars. He submits that benefit of Order dated 29.07.2003 passed by this Court needed to be extended to all the Petitioners and it could not have been restriction to only those seven persons who were then Petitioners before this Court. In support of his contention, he has taken support from the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in : (2006) 9 SCC 406 in the case of K. T. Veerappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., particularly paragraph 16. He also submitted that the distinction being pressed into service that because seven persons were appointed as per advertisements, which stipulated pay scale of Rs.2000 -3200 and, therefore, a corresponding pay scale of Rs.6500 - 200 -10500 came to be extended to them, is incorrect. He submits that treating it as personal pay only for those seven persons, has resulted in hostile discrimination to several Petitioners who are much Senior than those seven persons. He points out that after Fifth Pay revision came into force from 01.01.1996, the other Mamlatdars were drawing their salary in revised pay scale of Rs.5500 -175 -9000 which is corresponding the Fourth pay scale of Rs.1640 -2900. He has invited our attention to the advertisement issued on 28.11.1997 wherein for ten posts of Mamlatdar/Jt. Mamlatdar/Assistant Director of Civil Supplies, the pay scale stipulated is Rs.2000 -3200. Senior Advocate Shri Lotlikar has pointed out that after said advertisement, the Orders of appointment have been issued on various dates like 04.03.1997 and the offers of appointments were issued on various dates. He has invited our attention to the communication dated 04.03.1997 issued to the Petitioner no. 1. He further states that similar offers were issued to other Petitioners and ultimately the appointment Order has been issued on 22.12.1998. He further points out that in an offer for appointment, pay scale mentioned is Rs.2000 -3200 as per Fourth Wage Revision while in actual appointment Order, after Fifth Wage Revision i.e. Rs.5500 -9000 (Group B Gazetted) has been mentioned. He has submitted that these Petitioners also needed to be fitted in the pay scale of Rs.6500 -10500 as has been done in case of seven Petitioners who had earlier approached this Court.