Full Judgment Text
Non-Reportable
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.
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Polytechnic, Verna, was withdrawn way back in 1998 and pay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. Vide 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.
3
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.
4
5