Background

The petitioner, a registered association for labor assistants, represented persons initially employed in various roles such as Karkoon, mistry, technical assistant and sub-supervisor. Following a government resolution in 1984, these roles were merged into one cadre – Work Assistant – with recruitment rules introduced in 1985. Despite this restructuring, the state failed to establish a specific pay scale for the new cadre , causing petitioners to receive the scale intended for sub-supervisors instead.

Additionally, a 1987 resolution entitled members to higher pay scales and promotion paths, but the state delayed implementing those adjustments. As a result, the affected employees received inadequate pay grades, faced recovery of previously paid wages, and missed out on higher pay scales for extended periods of service. After protracted efforts, including a representation to the state in 2015, the Association filed this request for redress.

argument

Mr. GM Joshi, learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that the failure of the State to provide timely enhancements and promotions in the pay scale denied the petitioners their statutory rights. He pointed out that although the cadre merger was transparent, the promised recruitment rules and promotional benefits were never realised, leading to stagnation in the labor assistant cadre. The petitioners contended that the members were entitled to the scales of Additional Assistant Engineer and Assistant Engineer on the basis of length of service, citing specific government resolutions in support of their contention. Mr Joshi also challenged the legality of the state-imposed wage recoveries, saying they were arbitrary and unfair.

Ms. Pooja Ashar, Deputy Government Pleader, responded on behalf of the State, stating that the merger and the resulting salary adjustments were made in accordance with the recruitment rules and prescribed government orders. It contended that promotions could only be made subject to the availability of the vacancy subject to the Rules of 1985. Relying on the judgment in APL no. 380 of 2016 (relating to temporary employees with employment tax), she argued that the benefits sought were neither feasible nor intended for the cadres involved. The State also argued that the petition was time-barred since the petitioners accepted their rights by accepting their 1990 pay scales.

The reasoning of the Court

First, the court observed that the creation of the Labor Assistant cadre included provisions for promotions, as per government orders of 1984 and 1987. Despite meeting the promotion requirements, the petitioners were not granted these benefits, resulting in a delay in promotions degree. The state’s defense of vacancy-dependent promotions was rejected by the court, noting that the promotions should have been systematically available by 1990. Second, the court held that the back wages imposed on petitioners were unjustified. The state Department of Finance issued a resolution in 2002 against retroactive salary adjustments unless specified in the policy, undermining the basis for such recoveries. The court cited that the deductions conflict with the intent of government resolutions that promote equitable advancement and tenure compensation.

Third, on the issue of delay, the court referred to the principle of continuance of wrong, explaining that delays in resolving service complaints do not negate petitioners’ right to relief. It concluded that petitioners were timely in their 2015 representation and subsequent filing of the petition, treating the complaints as ongoing injuries. Finally, the court clarified that the citation APL no. 380 of 2016 it did not apply, as it referred to temporary employees with employment tax rather than to the permanent staff of work assistants. The case before the court involved members who met the criteria for regular service benefits under separate recruitment rules, thus distinguishing their claims from those adjudicated on appeal. The High Court directed the State to grant higher pay scales to the petitioners depending on their years of service – either in the scheme of 9-18-27 years or in the scheme of 12-24 years, whichever is relevant. Thus, the request was admitted to the extent mentioned.

Decided on: 10-24-2024

Citation: R/Special civil application no. 10151 of 2016 (Roads & Construction Department PWD Work Assistant Association vs. State of Gujarat & Anr.)

Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. GM Joshi, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vyom H. Shah

Defendant’s lawyer: Ms. Pooja Ashar, Deputy Government Pleader

Click here to read/download the order