High Court holds lowest promotional scale governs higher grade pay where multiple promotional posts exist

A single-judge bench of Justice Maulik J. Shelat of the Gujarat High Court heard a batch of writ petitions arising from the Gujarat Maritime Board’s refusal to grant Class-IV employees (Mazdoor/Apprentice) the first higher pay scale of Rs. 4,000–6,000 claimed as payable on promotion to the post of Tradesman. The petitions challenged the Board’s decision of 24.04.2013 and raised issues under Articles 14, 16 and 226 of the Constitution, seeking quashing of the impugned communication and direction to grant the higher pay scale with consequential arrears.

The High Court dismissed the batch of petitions and upheld the Board’s grant of the first higher pay scale of Rs. 2,610–3,540 (the Khalasi scale) to the petitioners. The Court accepted that the denial of a higher scale could amount to a "continuing wrong" but concluded that where more than one promotional post existed in different pay scales the applicable first higher pay scale was to be determined by the lowest of those promotional posts. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The plain reading of aforesaid Clauses would indicate that if there are more than one promotional posts in different scales of pay, the higher pay scale shall be considered of the pay scale of the lowest of the promotional post.” The judge further recorded that, having regard to the text of Clause 3(3) of the Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994 read with Clause 2 of G.R. dated 14.08.1998, “there is no merit in the claim of the respective petitioners to ask for higher pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000” and that “the respondent – Board has correctly granted higher pay scale of Rs. 2610-3540 to the petitioners.”

Background The petitioners were employed as Mazdoor or Apprentice with long service dating from the early 1990s. After nine years’ service many Mazdoors were offered an upgraded scale of Rs. 2,610–3,540 (Khalasi), but the petitioners claimed that their next promotional post was Tradesman carrying Rs. 4,000–6,000 and sought the corresponding first higher grade scale and arrears. Earlier litigation involving Khalasi and Tradesman posts culminated in a Division Bench ruling and a Supreme Court order (SLP dismissed on 27.01.2012) concerning similar claims; several office orders and selective promotions dating back to 1975 and 1980 were placed on record by both sides.

The petitioners argued there were no sanctioned promotional rules and that past promotions and Government Resolutions entitled them to the Tradesman scale; they also disputed requirements such as trade or computer (CCC) tests. The Board contended delay and laches, reliance on draft rules not notified by the State, differing pay scales for Mazdoor and Khalasi, and the applicability of Clause 3(3) of G.R. 16.08.1994 and Clause 2 of G.R. 14.08.1998 which, it said, mandated fixing the first higher pay scale at the level of the lowest promotional post where multiple promotional posts existed.

The Court analysed precedent on delay, laches and “continuing wrong” (including Sanjay Kumar Upadhyay, M.R. Gupta and Tarsem Singh), observed that denial of a rightful higher pay scale was a recurring injury but noted the settled principle that relief for arrears in continuing wrong cases might be confined to three years prior to filing. On the merits the Court examined the text of the government resolutions and promotional orders and found there were two promotional avenues (Khalasi and Tradesman) shown in the record; applying the G.R. clauses the Court held the Board correctly applied the lower promotional scale. The Court therefore dismissed the petitions and discharged the Rule, with no costs and no further interim directions.

Case Details: Case No.: C/SCA/11095/2013 Case Title: ANIL BABUBHAI VAJA Versus GUJARAT MARITIME BOARD Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Harshal N. Pandya (Advocate) For the Respondent(s): Mr. Kanubhai M. Patel, Senior Advocate with Ms. Dharmishta Raval and Mr. Hamesh C. Naidu (Advocates)