RAVINDRA v. GHUGEAND Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ
Legal Reasoning
6433.24wp(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6433 OF 2024SALIM PASHA BASHIRUDDINVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITSSECRETARY AND OTHERS ….Mr S. B. Sontakke, Advocate for Petitioner;Mr V. M. Kagne, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 & 2Mr U. B. Bondar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 & 4 CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGEAND Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ. DATE : 2nd July, 2024PER COURT:1.The Petitioner has put forth prayer clauses (B) and(C), which read as under :-“B)By issuing writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ,order or direction in like nature, to direct the respondents toRe-fix the pay-scale of petitioner thereby includingadditional increments as per the order dated 22.12.2008 inview of the orders of this hon’ble court in Writ petition no.14875/2023 dated 07.12.2023.C)By issuing writ of mandamus or any other appropriatewrit, order or direction in like nature. The respondents maybe directed to pay monetary benefits of additional
Legal Reasoning
6433.24wp(2) increments for “outstanding work” granted to the petitionerby order 22.12.2008 with consequential benefits to thepetitioner by fixing reformative six pay scales and for thatpurpose issue necessary direction or order to therespondents and to refund the amount recovered from thepetitioners if any.”2.Issue notice to the Respondents, returnable forthwith.The learned A.G.P. waives service of notice on behalf ofRespondent Nos.1 and 2. Shri. Bondar, the learned Advocatewaives service of notice on behalf of Respondent Nos.3 and 4.3.We are made aware that orders have been passed bythis Court at the Principal Seat, dated 04/05/2021 in Writ Petition(St.) No.1438/2021, filed by Sanjiv R. Patil and others Vs. Stateof Maharashtra and others, and dated 22/10/2020 in Writ PetitionNo.4050/2017, filed by Uday J. Godave and others Vs. State ofMaharashtra and others and similar other several matters. ThisPetition can be disposed off in the light of the directions issued inthe said orders.4.In Sanjiv R. Patil (supra), it has been held inparagraph Nos.4 to 6 as under :- 6433.24wp(3) “4.The Petitioners are employees of Zilla Parishad,Sangli. Pursuant to the G.Rs. dated 11th February 1974and 20th June 1989, the Petitioners, in view of theiroutstanding work, were granted either one or twoadvance increments as on 1st October 2006, 1st October2007 and 1st October 2008. The Petitioners state thatthe Respondent – State, however, by Circular dated 3rdJuly 2009 instructed to fix the pay in a revised payscale as per the recommendation of Sixth PayCommission without taking into consideration advanceincrements granted on 1st October 2006, 1st October2007 and 1st October 2008. It is stated that theRespondent – State, then issued the G.R. dated 24thAugust 2017 and reiterated the instructions issued byCircular dated 3rd July 2009. The contention is accruedand vested rights of the Petitioners cannot be takenaway by the impugned G.R.5.This Court (Aurangabad bench) in Writ PetitionNo. 14797 of 2017 (Ganpat Vitthal Dapute and Ors vs.The State of Maharashtra and ors ) vide its order dated11th June 2019, held that the G.R. dated 24th August2017 will have prospective effect. This Court,accordingly, held that the benefit of advance incrementsgranted as per the policy of the Government prevailingat that time, the same would not be withdrawn on thebasis of subsequent G.R. dated 24th August 2017. Wehave taken the similar view in Writ Petition No. 4050 of2018 decided on 22nd October 2020. 6.The learned counsel for respondent No.4 submitsthat respondent No.1 had by communication dated
Decision
6433.24wp(4) 4.12.2020 directed them to seek review of the orderpassed by this court in aforesaid writ petition.However, in absence of any interim stay order, we donot see any reason to refuse identical relief to thepetitioners. In the result, we pass the following order.a.The Respondents are directed to accord thebenefit of advance increments granted to thePetitioners as per the policy of the Respondent –State dated 11th February 1974 and 20th June1989 in the revise Sixth Pay Scale without givingany effect of subsequent Circular dated 3rd July2009 and G.R. dated 24th August 2017.b.Recovery, if any, made pursuant to theCircular dated 3rd July 2009 or G.R. dated 24thAugust 2017 from the Petitioners shall berefunded to them. c. Rule made absolute accordingly.d. No order as to costs.”5.In Uday J. Godave (supra), it has been held inparagraph No.6 as under :-“6.This Court (Aurangabad bench) in Writ PetitionNo. 14797 of 2017 (Ganpat Vitthal Dapute and Ors vs.The State of Maharashtra and ors ) vide its order dated11th June 2019, held that the G.R. dated 24th August2017 will have prospective effect. This Court,accordingly, held that the benefit of advance incrementsgranted as per the policy of the Government prevailingat that time, the same would not be withdrawn on thebasis of subsequent G.R. dated 24th August 2017.Considering the fact that the Respondent – State hasnot yet taken any policy decision with regard to issue in 6433.24wp(5) question, we are constrained to pass similar order. Inthe result, we pass the following order.a.The Respondents are directed to accord thebenefit of advance increments granted to thePetitioners as per the policy of the Respondent –State dated 11th February 1974 and 31st October1989 in the revise Sixth Pay Scale without givingany effect of subsequent Circular dated 3rd July2009 and G.R. dated 24th August 2017.b.Recovery, if any, made pursuant to theCircular dated 3rd July 2009 or G.R. dated 24thAugust 2017 from the Petitioners shall berefunded to them. c. Rule made absolute accordingly.d. No order as to costs.e.This order will be digitally signed by thePrivate Secretary of this Court. All concernedwill ct on a digitally signed copy of this order.”6.The learned Advocate representing the Respondents/Zilla Parishad, submits that some Zilla Parishads had filed ReviewApplications against similar orders, which are now dismissed.7.The order of this Court dated 18/07/2022, was passedplacing reliance on the Judgment delivered on 01/04/2021, in WritPetition No.12531/2019, filed by Raosaheb Shripati Desai andothers Vs. State of Maharashtra and group of matters. The saidJudgment dated 01/04/2021, was carried in Special Leave Petition 6433.24wp(6) (Civ.) No.10789/2022. By an order dated 20/07/2022, theHon’ble Supreme Court (three Judges Bench) dismissed theSpecial Leave Petition.8.The payment to the present Petitioner wascommenced earlier. Subsequently, it was stopped. The amountthat was earlier paid, has been recovered. 9.In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposedoff. Considering the said fact situation and the delay caused, weare only directing the Respondent/Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad, torefund the amount recovered from the Petitioner within a periodof 60 days from today and pay the arrears of the unpaid amount,without interest, within a period of 90 days. If the said amount isnot paid within 90 days, interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of thefiling of this Writ Petition would be granted and the said amountshall be recovered from the salary of the Officer, who has causedthe delay in making such payment. (Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)sjk