STATE OF GUJARAT v. SAHAI

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.SHAH ================================================================ 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ================================================================ SURYAKANT BHAICHAND SANGANI....Appellant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT....Respondent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR VAIBHAV A VYAS, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR RAKESH R.PATEL, ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent No.1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.SHAH Date : 11/12/2012 C/LPA/2391/2009 JUDGEMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI) ORAL JUDGEMENT

#1. We have heard Mr.Vaibhav Vyas, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr.Rakesh R.Patel, learned A.G.P. for the respondent.

#2. The case of the appellant is that the appellant entered into service on 1.7.1988 as a Clerk-cum-Typist on daily wages. He was terminated from service on 5.6.1991. He approached the Labour Court by way of Reference No.159 of 1991. Before the Labour Court, a compromise was entered into between the parties that the respondent will reinstate the appellant and grant him continuity of service and the appellant would waive backwages. The appellant was reinstated on 28.6.1993. Thereafter, he worked for a period of five years and claimed entitlement of higher pay scale after completion of five years continuous service. This claim was rejected by the respondent.

#3. In our opinion, the appellant could not claim higher pay scale on the basis of five years service as he has not put in actual service of five years. Therefore, the claim of higher pay scale was not admissible to him. Benefit of continuous service appears to have been granted to the appellant for post retiral C/LPA/2391/2009 JUDGEMENT benefits, but it cannot be treated to for a concession granting higher pay scale.

#4. For the aforesaid reasons, the order of learned Single Judge does not suffer from any error of law. This appeal is devoid of any merits and is accordingly dismissed. (binoy) (V.M.SAHAI, J.) (S.G.SHAH, J.)