### Prior Service in Independent District Panchayats Cannot Be Tagged for Higher Pay Scale Benefits

The petitioner was originally employed by the District Panchayat, Panchmahals, from April 21, 1980, to August 6, 1980

On August 7, 1980, he was appointed by the respondent, District Panchayat Bharuch

The respondent treated this as a fresh appointment, setting his first higher pay scale eligibility from August 7, 1980, rather than the earlier date

The petitioner previously challenged his seniority on these same grounds in Special Civil Application No. 7712 of 2010, which was dismissed by the High Court on September 21, 2010

The petitioner filed the present writ under Article 226 seeking to quash the order dated January 15, 2011, which substituted his higher pay scale date to August 7, 1980

1. Whether the previous service rendered by the petitioner at District Panchayat, Panchmahals, must be counted toward the calculation of the nine-year period for the grant of the first higher pay scale at District Panchayat, Bharuch

2. Whether the present petition is barred by the principle of res judicata regarding the determination of the petitioner's appointment date and service continuity

The court applied the principle of res judicata, which prevents a party from re-litigating an issue that has already been finally decided by a court of competent jurisdiction

The court relied on the legal doctrine that distinct District Panchayats are independent legal entities; therefore, service in one cannot be credited toward another unless specifically provided for in the appointment order

The court observed that the petitioner’s primary contention—that his service should be regularized from April 1980—had already been adjudicated and rejected in the earlier proceedings of SCA No. 7712 of 2010

In that previous order, the Coordinate Bench held that because the District Panchayats of Panchmahals and Bharuch are separate legal entities and the appointment order did not specify the continuity of past service, the appointment must be treated as "fresh"

Since the petitioner sought the exact same relief regarding his joining date in the previous petition (which had a "direct bearing" on the current prayer), the court ruled that the petitioner could not be allowed to re-agitate the issue

The court found no legal error in the respondent’s impugned order dated January 15, 2011, as it correctly reflected the petitioner’s fresh appointment date

The court found no merit in the claim to calculate the higher pay scale from April 1980. The interim relief was refused, the rule was discharged, and no costs were ordered