ALOK ARADHE, CJ.& RAVINDRA v. GHUGE, J. DATE
Legal Reasoning
*1* 934wp5083o24IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 5083 OF 2024ASHOK MANIKRAO PATIL AND ANOTHERVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITSSECRETARY AND OTHERS...Shri Sontakke Sandeep B., Advocate for the Petitioners.Shri A.R. Kale, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3/State.... CORAM : ALOK ARADHE, CJ.& RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. DATE : 18th March, 2025ORAL ORDER ( Per Ravindra V. Ghuge, J .) :- 1.The Petitioners have put forth prayer clauses (B) and©, as under:“B)By issuing writ of mandamus or anyappropriate writ, order or direction in likenature, to direct, benefit that was accorded topetitioners of additional increment by orderdated 02.04.2008 and 12.06.2008 shall not bewithdrawn, in view of the orders of thisHon’ble Court in Writ Petition No.9967/2021dated 06.10.2022.C)By issuing writ of mandamus or any otherappropriate writ, order or direction in likenature. The respondents may be directed topay/ release monetary benefits of additionalincrements granted to the petitioners by orders02.04.2008 and 12.06.2008 with consequentialbenefits to the petitioners by fixing reformative *2* 934wp5083o24six pay scales and for that purpose issuenecessary direction or order to therespondents.” 2. The dispute has essentially arisen on account of theGovernment Resolution dated 24/08/2017, by which a decisionwas taken by the State Government, not to grant the benefit ofadvance increments during the 6th Pay Commission regime, from01/10/2006 to 01/10/2015.3.In various judgments of this Court, it wasconsistently held that the Government Resolution dated24/08/2017, would operate prospectively and would not have theeffect of retrospective denial of advance increments. The StateGovernment and various Zilla Parishads had filed ReviewPetitions seeking review of various orders passed by this Court. Itwas inter alia sought to be contended in the said review petitionsthat, even though the ultimate decision for stoppage of thescheme for advance increments might have been taken on24/08/2017, it was earlier directed by way of a Circular dated03/07/2009, to undertake the exercise of pay fixation as per the6th Pay Commission Pay scales, without taking into considerationthe advance increments.
Legal Reasoning
*3* 934wp5083o244.By judgment and order dated 30/08/2022, this Courthas rejected the Review Petitions after considering all theobjections raised by the State Government. It was held that, nospecific instructions were issued before 24/08/2017, fordiscontinuation of the scheme of advance increments. ParagraphNos.12 to 15 of the judgment and order dated 30/08/2022, passedin Review Application (Civil) No.170 of 2022 in Writ PetitionNo.13760 of 2019 (The State of Maharashtra and Anr. Vs.Rupchand S/o. Narayan Shinde and Ors.), read as under :“12. After having heard learned Counsels at length, wefind that the review applicants have not been ableto point out any specific instructions issued priorto 24.08.2017/04.09.2018 for discontinuation ofthe schemes for grant of advance increments.Government Resolution dated 27.02.2009 andCircular dated 03.07.2009 do not indicate thatany final decision was taken for discontinuationof schemes for advance increments. We proceed toexamine the Government Resolution dated27.02.2009 and Circular dated 03.07.2009 indetails.13. Government Resolution dated 27.02.2009 came tobe issued by the State Government essentially forconveying the decision of the State Governmentabout acceptance or otherwise of variousrecommendations made by the Hakim Committeeconstituted for implementation ofrecommendations of the 6th Central PayCommission. In Annexure to the said GovernmentResolution, each recommendation and decision ofthe State Government thereon have been *4* 934wp5083o24enumerated. So far as the scheme for advanceincrement is concerned, the same is to be found atserial number 27 of the Annexure (para 3.24 ofCommittees Report). In that paragraph, theCommittee recommended that for employees/Officers rendering outstanding service, increment@ 4% be awarded instead of 3% and suchincrement be granted once in 5 years. It wasfurther recommended that since increment athigher rate was being granted, the then existingscheme for grant of one or two advanceincrements be discontinued. However, in thecolumn ‘Decision of State Government’ againstpara 3.24, remark is made stating that ‘separateaction would be taken by General AdministrationDepartment’. As against various otherrecommendations, the remark ‘accepted’ has beenmade. The recommendation made in para 3.24 bythe Hakim Committee was not accepted at leaston the date of issuance of Government Resolutiondated 27.02.2009 and General AdministrationDepartment was to take a decision thereonseparately. Thus, it cannot be inferred that anyspecific decision was taken by the StateGovernment on 27.02.2009 for discontinuation ofscheme for grant of advance increment.Therefore, we do not find that the orders underreview need to be disturbed on the basis of theGovernment Resolution dated 27.02.2009.14. Now, we come to the Circular dated 03.07.2009.By the said Circular, it was directed that the issueof discontinuation of scheme for grant of advanceincrement was under consideration with the StateGovernment and that some time was required fortaking final decision. Therefore, it was furtherdirected that temporarily the pay fixation of theemployees in the 6th Pay Commission scales bemade without considering the advanceincrements. Thus, the Circular dated 03.07.2009was clearly issued as a temporary measure. Thesaid circular did not communicate any decision to *5* 934wp5083o24the effect that the State Government discontinuedthe scheme for grant of advance increments.Therefore, we find that the reliance of Mr. Dixiton the Circular dated 03.07.2009 is again of noavail.15. We have carefully gone through the GovernmentResolution dated 24.08.2017 and Circular dated04.09.2018. By the Government Resolution dated24.08.2017, final decision came to be taken inrespect of recommendation made by the HakimCommittee in para 3.24 of its report directing thatduring the period from 01.10.2006 to 01.10.2015when revised pay scales as per 6th PayCommission were admissible, the benefit ofadvance increments should not be granted. Thus,the final decision on para 3.24 of CommitteesReport was taken by the State Government onlyon 24.08.2017. However, instead of simplydirecting that the scheme for grant of advanceincrements is discontinued, the State Governmentsought to give retrospective effect to its decisionby directing that the benefit of such advanceincrements be not given during the period from01.10.2006 to 01.10.2015. While issuing suchorders having retrospective effect, the StateGovernment lost sight of the fact that severalemployees were already granted the benefit ofadvance increments during the relevant period.As we have observed earlier, the deliberations fordiscontinuation of the scheme started only on27.02.2009/03.07.2009 and prior to that,admittedly, the issue of discontinuation of thescheme for grant of advance increment was noteven under consideration. The instructions fortemporarily doing pay fixation without advanceincrements were issued on 03.07.2009. Thismeans that several employees must have alreadybeen granted advance increments during theperiod from 01.10.2006 to 03.07.2009. We,therefore, fail to comprehend as to how the StateGovernment could have issued directions on *6* 934wp5083o2424.08.2017 that the benefit of advance incrementsshould not be granted from 01.10.2006 onwards.Even in respect of employees becoming eligiblefor grant of advance increments after 27.02.2009,we do not find any error in the view taken by thisCourt that the Government Resolution dated27.08.2017 would only have prospective effect.”5. Thus, it is now a well settled position that thescheme of grant of advance increments was discontinued for thefirst time by the Government Resolution, dated 24/08/2017 andthat, such decision would only operate prospectively.6. This Writ Petition is, therefore, disposed off with thedeclaration that the Government Resolution dated 24/08/2017,would apply prospectively. The Petitioners are held to be eligiblefor grant of advance increments for outstanding work, prior to24/08/2017. Since the Petitioners are not claiming interest, allconsequential benefits be calculated by adding up the saidadvance increments. Since the Petitioners have superannuated, allconsequential benefits post recalculation, be paid to thePetitioners within 90 days. ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ) ( CHIEF JUSTICE )(Kalyan Sangvikar, PS)