KHUSHAL KISANRAO KHAVANE v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Case Details
*1* 1a3a7t14a17wp3620o20advance increment IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 1 WRIT PETITION NO.3620 OF 2020 KHUSHAL KISANRAO KHAVANE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ... AND 3 WRIT PETITION NO.518 OF 2022 AND WRIT PETITION NO.519 OF 2022 AND WRIT PETITION NO.520 OF 2022 AND WRIT PETITION NO.521 OF 2022 VINAYAK RAMCHANDRA SARDESHPANDE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ... AND 7 WRIT PETITION NO.6837 OF 2022 NARENDRA KASHINATH WAGH VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ... AND 8 WRIT PETITION NO.6841 OF 2022 HILAL HARI BORSE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ... AND *2* 1a3a7t14a17wp3620o20advance increment 9 WRIT PETITION NO.6842 OF 2022 KIRAN DINKAR SARAVADE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ... AND 10 WRIT PETITION NO.6861 OF 2022 MUMTAZ BEGUM SHAIKH VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ... AND 11 WRIT PETITION NO.6865 OF 2022 SUBHASH PAGOJI DHUMALE AND ANOTHER VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ... AND 12 WRIT PETITION NO.6866 OF 2022 SUDESH DAMODAR MANKAR AND OTHERS VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ... AND 13 WRIT PETITION NO.6869 OF 2022 UJWALSING HATESING GIRASE AND OTHERS VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ... AND 14 WRIT PETITION NO.6870 OF 2022 *3* 1a3a7t14a17wp3620o20advance increment PRATIBHA PRAMODRAO RAJURIKAR VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ... AND 17 WRIT PETITION NO.8054 OF 2022 SANJAY VITTHAL SONAWANE AND ANOTHER VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS ...
Legal Reasoning
... Advocate for the Petitioners : Shri Shivkumar K. Mathpati AGPs for the Respondents/ State : Shri S.G. Sangle, Shri P.S. Patil and Shri A.R. Kale. Advocate for Respondent 4/ Zilla Parishad in WP 3620/2020 : Ms.Manjusha Jagtap Advocate for Respondents 4 to 6 in WP 6861/22, 5 & 6 in WP/6865/22, 4 to 6 in WP/6870/22 and 5 & 6 in WP/8054/22 : Shri U.B. Bondar Advocate for Respondents 4 to 8 in WP 518/22, 4 & 5 in WP 520/222 and 4 to 6 in WP 521/22 : Shri S.B. Pulkundwar Advocate for Respondents 4 and 5 in WP 519/22 : Shri P.D. Suryawanshi … CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE ARUN R. PEDNEKER, JJ. & DATE :- 01st August, 2022 *4* 1a3a7t14a17wp3620o20advance increment Per Court :- 1. In these matters, the identically placed petitioners have put forth substantive prayer clauses B, C and D as under :- “B) The G.R. dated 24th August, 2017 may kindly be quashed and set aside to the extent of denial of benefits of one or two additional increments to the employees who has been given benefits of sixth pay commission it means its applicability of retrospective in nature by issuing the writ of mandamus or any other writ or order. The Resp. authority may kindly be direct to give/release the benefits of two additional increments to the petitioner forthwith as per existing earlier policy of the Government Resolutions issued by the respondent authority. C) Or The respondent authority may kindly be direct to restore/extension and continuation of benefits of earlier orders dated 27.02.2009, passed by the Resp. No.4 as per existing G.R. D) By issuing writ of mandamus or any other writ order kindly be direct to the respondent authority to relies/pay the deference amount since the date the petitioner is declared as he is entitled to benefits of two additional increments and also repay monetary benefits if any recovery made from him.” 2. All these petitioners are before this Court challenging the Government Resolution dated 24.08.2017 issued by the Government of Maharashtra by which, the additional increment payable on account of excellent work, is to be stopped. *5* 1a3a7t14a17wp3620o20advance increment 3. An identical issue, fell for the consideration of this Court at the Principal Seat in Writ Petition (Stamp) No.1438/2021 filed by Sanjiv R. Patil and others vs. the State of Maharashtra and others. By an order dated 04.05.2021, this Court concluded in paragraphs 4 to 6 as under :- “4. The Petitioners are employees of Zilla Parishad, Sangli. Pursuant to the G.Rs. dated 11th February 1974 and 20th June 1989, the Petitioners, in view of their outstanding work, were granted either one or two advance increments as on 1st October 2006, 1st October 2007 and 1st October 2008. The Petitioners state that the Respondent – State, however, by Circular dated 3rd July 2009 instructed to fix the pay in a revised pay scale as per the recommendation of Sixth Pay Commission without taking into consideration advance increments granted on 1st October 2006, 1st October 2007 and 1st October 2008. It is stated that the Respondent – State, then issued the G.R. dated 24th August 2017 and reiterated the instructions issued by Circular dated 3rd July 2009. The contention is accrued and vested rights of the Petitioners cannot be taken away by the impugned G.R. This Court (Aurangabad Bench) in Writ Petition No. 14797 of 2017 (Ganpat Vitthal Dapute and Ors vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors ) vide its order dated 11th June 2019, held that the G.R. dated 24th August 2017 will have prospective effect. This Court, accordingly, held that the benefit of advance increments granted as per the policy of the Government prevailing at that time, the same would not be withdrawn on the basis of subsequent G.R. dated 24th August 2017. We 5. *6* 1a3a7t14a17wp3620o20advance increment 6.
Decision
have taken the similar view in Writ Petition No. 4050 of 2018 decided on 22nd October 2020. The learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that respondent No.1 had by communication dated 4.12.2020 directed them to seek review of the order passed by this court in aforesaid writ petition. However, in absence of any interim stay order, we do not see any reason to refuse identical relief to the petitioners. In the result, we pass the following order. a. The Respondents are directed to accord the benefit of advance increments granted to the Petitioners as per the policy of the Respondent – State dated 11th February 1974 and 20th June 1989 in the revise Sixth Pay Scale without giving any effect of subsequent Circular dated 3rd July 2009 and G.R. dated 24th August 2017. b. Recovery, if any, made pursuant to the Circular dated 3 rd July 2009 or G.R. dated 24th August 2017 from the Petitioners shall be refunded to them. c. Rule made absolute accordingly. d. No order as to costs.” 4. In yet another Writ Petition No.4050/2017 filed by Uday J. Godave and vs. The State of Maharashtra and others and connected petitions, this Court, at the Principal Seat, vide judgment dated 22.10.2020 held in paragraph 6 as under :- “6. This Court (Aurangabad Bench) in Writ Petition No. 14797 of 2017 (Ganpat Vitthal Dapute and Ors vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors ) vide its order dated 11th June 2019, held that the G.R. dated 24th August 2017 will have prospective *7* 1a3a7t14a17wp3620o20advance increment effect. This Court, accordingly, held that the benefit of advance increments granted as per the policy of the Government prevailing at that time, the same would not be withdrawn on the basis of subsequent G.R. dated 24th August 2017. Considering the fact that the Respondent – State has not yet taken any policy decision with regard to issue in question, we are constrained to pass similar order. In the result, we pass the following order. a. The Respondents are directed to accord the benefit of advance increments granted to the Petitioners as per the policy of the Respondent – State dated 11th February 1974 and 31st October, 1989 in the revise Sixth Pay Scale without giving any effect of subsequent Circular dated 3rd July 2009 and G.R. dated 24th August 2017. b. Recovery, if any, made pursuant to the Circular dated 3 rd July 2009 or G.R. dated 24th August 2017 from the Petitioners shall be refunded to them. c. Rule made absolute accordingly. d. No order as to costs. e. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary of this Court. All concerned will act on a digitally signed copy of this order.” 5. Considering the identical orders passed earlier, this Court at the Principal Seat, in Raosaheb Shripati Desai and others vs. The State of Maharashtra and others, vide judgment dated 01.04.2021 delivered in Writ Petition No.12531/2019, granted the reliefs to the petitioners. The Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur, assailed the said judgment dated 01.04.2021 before the Honourable Supreme Court by preferring Petition for Special *8* 1a3a7t14a17wp3620o20advance increment Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.10789/2022. By the order dated 20.07.2022, the Honourable Supreme Court dismissed the SLP with the following order :- “1. We are not inclined to entertain the Special Leave Petitions under Article 136 of the Constitution. The Special Leave Petitions are accordingly dismissed. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.” 3. 2. 6. The learned advocates representing the respective Zilla Parishads submit that the Review Petitions for reviewing the similar orders have been filed and the same are pending. They draw our attention to the order passed by this Court on 18.07.2022 in Writ Petition No.6856/2022 filed by Sayed Nazir Ahmed Syed Hameed vs. The State of Maharashtra and others wherein, we have directed the petitioners therein to file individual affidavit-undertakings to the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, that in the event of the Review Petitions being decided in favour of the Zilla Parishad, the petitioners/beneficiaries would refund the amounts received by them within four weeks. 7. In view of the above, these Writ Petitions are partly *9* 1a3a7t14a17wp3620o20advance increment allowed. The respective Zilla Parishads/concerned authorities would accord the benefit of advance increment to the petitioners as per the policy of the State vide Government Resolutions dated 11.02.1974 and 31.10.1989 in view of the 6th pay commission recommendations, without giving effect to the circular dated 03.07.2009 and Government Resolution dated 24.08.2017. It is conceded that the Government Resolution dated 24.08.2017 will now have prospective effect. If such payments have been made earlier, there is no question of recovery of the amounts. 8. These petitioners would tender their individual affidavit-undertaking to the respective Zilla Parishads/concerned authorities stating therein that if the Review Petitions are allowed and if it is finally concluded that these petitioners are not entitled to the benefits received by them, the said amounts would be refunded within four weeks to the respective Zilla Parishads/concerned authorities from the date of such order. 9. In the event of there being any recovery already carried out against any of the petitioners, we direct the concerned Zilla Parishads/authorities to repay the said amounts to such petitioners within a period of six weeks from today, failing which, the amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per *10* 1a3a7t14a17wp3620o20advance increment annum from the date of recovery and the interest component shall be paid from the salary amount of the officers, who may be responsible for the delay in such refund. kps (ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)