Case Note & Summary
The dispute involved a retired municipal employee who had served as a Professional Tax Officer from June 2009 until his retirement in August 2014. The petitioner contended that despite his appointment to the post of Professional Tax Officer (Class-II), he was paid a lower pay scale than prescribed for that position. He sought writ relief under Articles 14 and 226 of the Constitution for payment of the differential salary according to the Gujarat Civil Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 1998. The petitioner argued that he was entitled to the pay scale of Rs.2000-3500 (revised to Rs.6500-10500) instead of Rs.1400-2300 (revised to Rs.4500-7000) he actually received. The respondent municipality opposed the petition on grounds of delay, waiver, and absence of a sanctioned post of Professional Tax Officer in their setup. The court analyzed the factual matrix, noting the petitioner's appointment through an office order dated 02.06.2009 and the State Government's creation of the Professional Tax Officer post via notification. The court found that the petitioner had indeed been appointed to and worked in the post of Professional Tax Officer, making him entitled to the prescribed pay scale. The court rejected the delay defense, holding that the pay anomaly constituted a continuous wrong, and applied the limitation principle restricting arrears to three years prior to petition filing. The court concluded that paying the lower scale violated the petitioner's fundamental right to equal pay for equal work, making the doctrine of estoppel-waiver inapplicable. The writ petition was partly allowed, directing the municipality to calculate and pay the differential salary, leave encashment, and gratuity for the restricted period with interest for delayed payment.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Fundamental Rights - Right to Equal Pay for Equal Work - Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 14, 226 - Petitioner appointed as Professional Tax Officer entitled to pay scale prescribed for that post - Court held that paying lower scale violated fundamental right to receive requisite pay scale, making doctrine of estoppel-waiver inapplicable (Paras 10-11). B) Service Law - Pay Scale Revision - Entitlement to Prescribed Pay Scale - Gujarat Civil Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 1998 - Petitioner appointed as Professional Tax Officer on 02.06.2009 entitled to pay scale of Rs.2000-3500 (revised to Rs.6500-10500) instead of Rs.1400-2300 (revised to Rs.4500-7000) - Court directed respondent to calculate and pay difference for service period (Paras 8-9, 13). C) Limitation Law - Continuous Wrong Doctrine - Pay Anomaly as Continuing Wrong - Not mentioned - Pay anomaly constituted continuous wrong, allowing claim despite delay - Court restricted arrears payment to three years prior to petition filing as per Supreme Court precedents (Para 12).
Premium Content
The Headnote is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access key legal points
Issue of Consideration: Whether the petitioner was entitled to receive the pay scale prescribed for the post of Professional Tax Officer (Class-II) instead of the lower pay scale he received during his service tenure
Premium Content
The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access critical case issues
Final Decision
Writ petition partly allowed. Rule made absolute. Respondent No.3 directed to calculate and pay difference of salary, leave encashment and gratuity for period 02.06.2009 to 31.08.2014, with arrears restricted to 31.08.2011 to 31.08.2014. Payment to be made by 30.04.2026 with 6% interest from 01.05.2026 if delayed. No order as to costs.
