Work-charged drivers appointed before 1996 are entitled to the applicable higher pay scale from appointment.

The respondents claimed the pay scale of Rs.290–480 applicable to Heavy Truck Drivers for the period 1982–1986, contending that although initially appointed in the Work-Charged Driver scale of Rs.260–400, they were actually driving heavy trucks and vehicles.

The learned Single Judge allowed their writ petitions, relying on the decision in Special Civil Application No.3751 of 1982, which had been affirmed in Letters Patent Appeal No.452 of 1993.

The State challenged the orders, arguing that the Revision of Pay Rules, 1975 and 1987 maintained different scales for Road Roller/Roller Drivers and Drivers of Jeeps/Trucks, and that employees appointed after 1 January 1996 could not claim benefits for an earlier period.

The State also challenged the award of 10% interest on arrears.

The Court separately identified two employees appointed as drivers only after 1 January 1996 and excluded them from the relief.

1. Whether the respondents appointed as Work-Charged Drivers during the operation of the Revision of Pay Rules, 1975 and 1987 were entitled to the pay scale of Rs.290–480 applicable to Heavy Truck Drivers.

2. Whether employees appointed as drivers after 1 January 1996 could claim the benefit of the earlier pay scales for the period 1982–1986.

3. Whether the respondents were entitled to interest at 10% per annum on the arrears payable pursuant to the Single Judge’s order.

4. Whether an employee initially appointed to another post, but subsequently appointed as a Work-Charged Driver, was entitled to the driver’s pay scale from the date of such subsequent appointment.

The Court applied the Revision of Pay Rules, 1975 and 1987, under which the applicable pay scale depended upon the post to which the employee was appointed and the duties performed.

It further applied the Revision of Pay Rules, 1998, which placed the scales for Roller Drivers/Road Roller Drivers, Dumper Drivers, Tanker Drivers and Drivers/Jeep-Truck Drivers on the same footing, making that regime applicable to employees appointed after 1 January 1996.

The Court followed the precedent in Special Civil Application No.3751 of 1982, as affirmed in Letters Patent Appeal No.452 of 1993, holding that eligible Work-Charged Drivers were entitled to the pay scale attached to the Heavy Truck Driver post.

It also applied the principle that arrears and interest must correspond to the relief granted in the governing precedent; since interest had not been awarded in that precedent, 10% interest could not be granted in the present matters.

The Court held that employees who were appointed as Drivers during the period governed by the 1975 and 1987 Pay Rules were covered by the earlier binding precedent and were therefore entitled to the applicable Heavy Truck Driver scale.

However, employees whose appointment as drivers occurred only after 1 January 1996 fell under the 1998 Pay Rules; consequently, they could not retrospectively claim the 1975 or 1987 scales for a period during which they had not yet worked as drivers.

The Court clarified that an employee’s initial appointment as a Helper, Fitter, Chowkidar or another post did not defeat the claim if the employee was subsequently appointed as a Work-Charged Driver; the benefit would commence from the date of appointment to the driver post.

Since the precedent relied upon by the Single Judge did not award interest, the award of 10% interest was deleted.

The employees appointed as Drivers during the operation of the 1975 and 1987 Pay Rules remained entitled to the applicable Heavy Truck Driver pay scale from the date of their appointment as Work-Charged Drivers.

Bhagirath H. Solanki and Kalaji F. Khant, who were appointed as drivers after 1 January 1996, were held not entitled to the relief granted by the Single Judge.

The award of 10% interest on arrears was set aside.

Leave was granted to amend the cause title in LPA No.421 of 2018 to implead the legal heir of deceased respondent Gambhirsinh P. Thakore.

All connected civil applications for stay were disposed of consequentially.