Government
of Goa & ANR. Vs. J. M. R. Noronha [2009] INSC 1263 (22 July 2009)
Judgment
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.4606 OF
2009 (Arising out of SLP) No. 23488/2004) Government of Goa & Anr.
...Appellants Versus J.M.R.Noronha ...Respondent JUDGEMENT R.M. Lodha, J.
1.
Leave granted.
2.
J.M.R.Noronha, respondent, filed a writ petition before the High
Court of Bombay at Goa praying therein for following reliefs:
"(a)
That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an appropriate Writ of Mandamus,
order or direction, calling for the records proceedings before the Respondent
no.
1/Committee
which was constituted pursuant to the Judgment of this Honourable Court dated
25.3.1998 in Writ Petition No. 48/97 and after examining the legality, validity
and the reasonability of the decision of the Committee be pleased to quash and
set aside the same.
(b) that
this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant an appropriate Writ of Mandamus or any
other appropriate writ, order or direction, ordering and directing the
Respondents herein to forthwith grant to the petitioner, the benefit of revised
A.I.C.T.E. pay scale of Rs. 3700-5700, instead of and in place of Rs.
2200-4000, with effect from the date, as granted to other similarly situated persons
vide Order dated 7.5.1994."
3.
The Division Bench allowed the writ petition in terms of prayer
clauses (a) and (b) on the ground of discrimination, namely, that the Workshop
Superintendent of the Agnel Polytechnic, Verna was given the revised pay scale
of Rs. 3700-5700 while the petitioner was denied the same pay scale.
This is
what the Division Bench said:
" 9.
We have not thought it necessary to consider the submission made by Shri Sonak
on behalf of the petitioner, that Shri A.K. Bidkar should not have associated
himself with the Committee or its deliberations, in view of the fact that we
find that the grievance made out in the petition that the petitioner has been
discriminated against is justified. Nothing is placed on record to show as to
why the Workshop Superintendent of the Agnel Polytechnic, Verna, was found to
be entitled to the revised pay scale, whereas the petitioner was
not........."
4.
The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the revised
pay scale of the Workshop Superintendent, Agnel Polytechnic, Verna, was
withdrawn way back in 1998 and pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000 was restored to that
Officer.
5.
Video communication dated July 14, 1998, the post of Workshop
Superintendent of the Agnel Polytechnic, Verna, was 2 downgraded from the scale
of Rs. 3700-5700 to the scale of Rs. 2200-4000/-. The said communication reads
thus:
"No.17/18/94-EDN
(COL)/4362 Government of Goa Directorate of Technical Education Porvorim -Goa.
Dated :-
14/7/98 To, The Suervisor, Agnel Polytechnic Verna.
Sir, I am
directed to inform you that it has been decided to downgrade the post of
Workshop Superintendent of the Agnel Polytechnic, Verna, from the scale of Rs.
3700-5700 to the scale of Rs. 2200- 4000/-.
In view
of the above, you are requested to issue necessary order down grading the post
of workshop Superintendent of your institute as indicated above at your
earliest, with a copy thereof endorsed to this office for information.
Yours
faithfully, -Sd- (A.K. Bidkar) Director of Technical Education Porvorim -Goa
Copy to:
1. The
file of agnel Polytechnic, Verna."
6. We are
informed that the Workshop Superintendent, Agnel Polytechnic, Verna, did not
challenge the aforesaid communication and the same has attained finality.
7. The
High Court appears to have overlooked the fact that much before the matter was
decided by it, the revised pay scale of Superintendent, Agnel Polytechnic,
Verna stood withdrawn and he was put in the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/-, the
same scale which the petitioner was getting. Had this fact been taken into
consideration by the High Court, ought we know, what would have been its
decision in the matter. On this short ground, matter needs to be sent back to
the High Court.
8. The
appeal is, accordingly, allowed and the judgment dated January 12, 2004 is set
aside. Writ petition is restored to the file of the High Court for fresh
consideration and disposal in accordance with law. As the matter is quite old,
we request the High Court to expedite its hearing.
........................J (Tarun Chatterjee)
........................J (R. M. Lodha)
New Delhi
July 22, 2009.
Back
