Gujarat High Court Directs Grant of First Higher Pay Scale to Khalasi, Restricts Arrears to Post‑2010 Period

A single‑judge bench comprising Honourable Mr. Justice Maulik J. Shelat heard a batch of Special Civil Applications challenging the Gujarat Maritime Board’s refusal to grant the first higher pay scale to Khalasi employees. The petitions questioned the respondent’s decision dated 24.04.2013 and sought grant of the Rs. 4,000–6,000 scale in place of Rs. 2,650–4,000 with consequential arrears and interest, relying on earlier judgments of this Court and the Supreme Court.

The High Court partly allowed the lead petition and directed the Board to grant the higher pay scale of Rs. 4,000–6,000 to the petitioner from the date on which he became entitled to it. The Court found the issue to be “squarely covered” by earlier decisions of a Co‑ordinate Bench which had held that the next promotional post for Khalasi was Tradesman, and held that the respondent acted arbitrarily in denying parity to similarly situated employees, thereby violating Article 14. The Court treated the claim as arising from a continuing wrong but limited the award of past monetary relief: arrears were allowed only from 01.07.2010 until payment, to be disbursed by 15.04.2026 or with 6% p.a. interest thereafter. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “This argument of the learned counsel is based on the assumption that from the post of Khalasi, a person is to be promoted on the post of Assistant Tradesman and Assistant Tradesman is to be promoted on the post of Tradesman. There is a fallacy in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. The pay scale of Khalasi and Assistant Tradesman being the same since the inception of Rules 1975 and the post of Assistant Tradesman and Khalasi were interchangeable and transferrable from one post to other. Therefore, in such situation, the next promotional post of Khalasi would be Tradesman… Moreover, we have held that the next promotional post of Khalasi was Tradesman, therefore, we are of the firm opinion that the Board did not commit any mistake in granting higher grade pay scale of the post of Tradesman to the respondents…” The Court also directed regular revision of pay after payment of arrears.

Background The petitioner joined the Gujarat Maritime Board as a Khalasi in 1993 and, upon completion of nine years’ service, was offered a higher pay scale of Rs. 2,650–4,000 w.e.f. 26.09.2002 instead of Rs. 4,000–6,000 which he claimed was the proper first higher grade (Tradesman). A cluster of earlier writ petitions by similarly placed Khalasis had been allowed by a Single Judge on 15.06.2010 and confirmed by a Division Bench on 10.05.2011; the Board’s Special Leave Petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 27.01.2012. After an internal representation by the petitioner in 2012, the Board invited details and eventually rejected his claim by communication dated 24.04.2013 on grounds including non‑clearance of departmental and computer (CCC) tests and reliance on subsequent Government Resolutions. The petitioner challenged that communication under Articles 14, 16 and 226.

The Court considered competing submissions: petitioner’s counsel relied on the prior coordinate‑bench and appellate rulings holding Khalasi’s next promotional post as Tradesman and on parity with others; the Board argued delay and laches, reliance on Government Resolutions (including clauses treating multiple promotional posts and caps on higher scales), and the petitioner’s non‑compliance with departmental/CCC requirements. After analysing authority on delay, laches and “continuing wrong” (including the proposition that recurring deficits in pay produce fresh causes of action and that arrears may be restricted), the Court found the petitioner’s claim to be maintainable despite delay because the grievance constituted a continuing wrong. The Court rejected the Board’s contention that departmental or CCC tests barred the claim, noting exemptions for Class‑IV employees in the record. It held that the Board’s disparate treatment of similarly situated Khalasis was arbitrary and breached Article 14. Final relief granted was limited: the higher scale was to be granted from the date of entitlement, but arrears were payable only from 01.07.2010; payment deadlines and interest for non‑compliance were set out. The petition was otherwise partly allowed and made absolute to that extent; no costs were imposed.

Case No.: C/SCA/11084/2013 (Lead; batch of connected SCA matters) Case Title: BHAGWAN DAYALBHAI WAGHELA Versus GUJARAT MARITIME BOARD Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Rishabh Acharya with Ms. Harshal N. Pandya For the Respondent(s): Mr. Kanubhai M. Patel, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Dharmishta Raval and Mr. Hamesh C. Naidu