High Court
Facts
12174.22wp(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.12174 OF 20221.Suryakant S/O. Vinayakrao PathakAge: 76 years, Occupation: Pensioner R/O: 11, Chaitnaya nagar Soc. N-7 L-2 Cidco, Aurangabad.2.Madhukar S/o. Gangadhar Mahajan Age: 76 Years, Occupation: Pensioner R/O: 10, Pagriya Colony, Near Rly. Station, Aurangabad3.Arvind S/o Shyamrao Deshpande (Died on 25/8/2023) thr. L.R.Anuradha Arvind Deshpande, Age: 73 years, Occu: HouseholdR/O Martand" Bungalow Surana Nagar Jalna Road, Aurangabad4.Padmakar Vishnupant KulkarniAge: 78 Years, Occupation: PensionerR/O: Plot No. 56-, N-4, CIDCO Aurangabad5.Surendra Gokul Prasad Dubey (Died)Through L.RA. Alkesh Surendra Dubey Age: 48 Years, Occupation: Business R/O: Nr. Gurudwara, Dhawani Mohalla Aurangabad6.Madhavroa Bhanudas KulkarniAge: 83 Years, Occupation: PensionerR/O: 5 Ravindra Nagar, Tilak Nagar, Aurangabad7.Bhanudas Dattatrya KulkarniAge: 74 Years, Occupation: Pensioner R/O: N-11/D/22/2 Ravi Nagar Hudco, Aurangabad 12174.22wp(2) 8.Shivdas Rama Bhavsar Age: 79 Years, Occupation: Pensioner R/O: A/3/7 Tapadia Park N-4 CIDCO, Aurangabad9. Dinkar Kishanrao Padalkar (Died) Through L.R's:A. Madhav Dinkar Padalkar, Age: 46 Yrs, Occ. BusinessB. Milind Dinkar Padalkar Age: 44 years, Oсс: ServiceC. Sow. Manisha Sanjay Patil Age:48 Years, Occ. HouseAll AboveR/O: 15, Vivek Nagar Housing Society N-1-D Sector CIDCO Aurangabad10.K.B. Shelke, Age: 77 Years, Occ: Pensioner R/O: Ravindra Nagar. Society, Tilak Nagar, Aurangabad11. V. G. Dhayre, Age: 82 Years, Occ: Pensioner R/O: Shasrstri Nagar, Garkheda Parisar, Aurangabad12. Vishwambhar Narhari Jagdale, Age: 78 Yrs, Occ. Pensioner, R/o. At Sawangi (harsul) Jalgaon Rd, Aurangabad13.Ramesh Ramdas Ramdin Age: 79 Years, Occupation: Pensioner R/O: Ravindra Nagar, Plat No. 28, Aurangabad14.Vishnu Pant Govindrao Nandedkar Age: 78 Years, Occupation: Pensioner R/O: Shree Ram, Pundlikawadi Mahaweer Chowk, Nanded 12174.22wp(3) 15.Yashwant Shankarrao Deshmukh Age: 81 Years, Occupation: Pensioner R/O: Vinayak Nagar, Bhawsarchakra Taroda Kh, Nanded.16.Govind Dattatraya Bhanegaonkar Age: 74 Years, Occupation: Pensioner R/O: 100 A kavailyashanti Yashwant Nagar Nanded17. Anant Bapurao Bidwai Age: 77 Years, Occupation: Pensioner R/O: H. No. 116/4/1 Saibaba nagar, Hudco, Nanded18. Hiranath Keshavrao Gurjar Age: 77 Years, Occupation: Pensioner R/O: C-71, kabbra Nagar Powadi, Nanded.19.Suryakant Balbhim Kunturwar Age: 81 Years, Occupation: Pensioner R/O: Sahyadri Nagar (Kaman) Tarad BK, Nanded20.Purushottam Govind ChowdhariAge: 73 Years, Occupation: PensionerR/O: 1 Sahyadri Nagar, Taroda BK, Nanded.21. Nanasaheb Dhondopant MuleyAge: 75 Years, Occupation: Pensioner R/O: Gurukrupa Ashirwad Nagar, Parbhani22. Satyaprem Vasantrao ParsekarAge: 65 Years, Occupation: PensionerR/O: Ramkrushna Nagar Parbhani23. Sheshadri Amabadas KulkarniAge: 78 Years, Occupation: PensionerR/O: Near R.R. petrol Pamp Shivram Nagar Parbhani 12174.22wp(4) 24. Vasant Namdeo Joshi,Age: 80 Years, Occupation: PensionerR/O: Suyog Colony, Wangi Road, Parbhani.25. Madhukar Narayanrao BandewarAge: 77 Years, Occupation: PensionerR/O: Ramkrushna Nagar, Parbhani26. Vishwas Dadaprasad ChoudhariAge: 66 Years, Occupation: PensionerR/O: Pardeshi Galli, Bhokardan Dist. Jalna27. Sudhakar Ramkrishna KulkarniAge: 81 Years, Occupation: PensionerR/O: 20 Shivneri Nagar, Near Manik Hospital, Garkheda Aurangabad28. Suresh Ganpatrao LalsareAge: 68 Years, Occupation: PensionerR/O: N-2, B. N-2-1/83, Jaibhavani Nagar,Behind Petrol Pump, Thakre Nagar, Aurangabad29. Sharad Puroshattamrao Naik Age: 66 Years, Occupation: Pensioner R/O: Sitanjali Apartment Chatrapati Nagar, Garkheda, Aurangabad.30. Prabhakar Govindrao Kulkarni (Died) Through L.R's:A. Pramod Prabhakarao Kulkarni Age: 52 Years, Occupation: BusinessB. Krishna Prabhakarrao Kulkarni Age: 47 Years, Occ. ServiceAll AboveR/o. Shivneri Nagar Plot No. 21 Garkheda Aurangabad ….PETITIONERS 12174.22wp(5) VERSUS1)The State of Maharashtra 2)Principle Secretary General Administration Dept Govt. of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai 323) Principle Secretary, Finance Dept. Govt. of Maharashtra, Mantralaya Mumbai - 324) Principle Secretary Water Resource Dept. (CADA) Govt. Of Maharashtra, Mantralaya Mumbai - 325) Principle Secretary Public Works Dept. Govt. Of Maharashtra, Mantralaya Mumbai – 32 ….RESPONDENTS ….Mr D. R. Irale Patil, Advocate for petitioners Mr M. K. Goyanka, Addl.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 5 CORAM : MANGESH S. PATILAND PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, JJ. Reserved on : 26th November, 2024 Pronounced on : 28th January, 2025 JUDGMENT ( Per : Prafulla S. Khubalkar, J.)1.Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heardfinally by consent of the parties. 12174.22wp(6) 2.The petitioners have challenged the judgment and orderdated 17/02/2022 in Transfer Application No.9/2021 and also the orderdated 10/08/2022 in Review Application No.2/2022, passed byMaharashtra Administrative Tribunal and have also claimed that thebenefits of Time Bound Promotion vide Government Resolution dated08/06/1995 with consequential benefits be conferred upon them. 3.The brief facts as narrated in the petition leading to thefiling of instant petition are as under :-(a)The petitioners, who were diploma holders, wereappointed as ‘Junior Engineer’ during the period 1962 to 1974 in theIrrigation and Public Works Department of the Government ofMaharashtra. The petitioners have retired during the period 1995-2005and are pensioners. (b)In the year 1978, the Government made a revision of theirpay-scales and the benefits were conferred upon the petitioners w.e.f.01/04/1976. Pursuant thereto, the pay-scale for Junior Engineers wasincreased to Rs. 395-900 and higher starting pay of Rs.425/- for threeyears was granted. 12174.22wp(7) It is stated that earlier in the year 1970, the Governmenthad introduced Recruitment Rules only for the cadre of MaharashtraService Engineers – Class-I and Class-II, and there were norecruitment rules for the post of Junior Engineers which fell undercategory “C”.(c)In the year 1984, the Government framed policy videGovernment Resolution dated 16/04/1984 and thereby conferred thestatus of gazetted officers upon degree holders and other JuniorEngineers. By this Government Resolution, two different cadres werecreated, namely, ‘Assistant Engineer Grade-II” for degree holders and‘Sectional Engineer’ for diploma holders and unqualified JuniorEngineers. Both these cadres were given the same pay-scales i.e.Rs.600-30-750-40-950.(d)In the year 1988, the Government restructured thepay-scales of all the cadres of different departments. So far as theSectional Engineers working under the Public Works Department andIrrigation Department of the Government of Maharashtra, the revisedcorresponding pay-scale of Rs.2000-3200 was given with effect from01/01/1986. It is stated that the petitioners being Sectional Engineers 12174.22wp(8) at that time were working in the pay-scale of Rs.600-950 and pursuantto the revision of pay-scales in the year 1988, they were given thebenefits of pay-scale of Rs.2000-3200 from 01/01/1986.(e)In the year 1993, the Government issued a GovernmentResolution dated 29/07/1993, which made amalgamation of posts/pay-scales and accordingly, the petitioners were categorized in Group‘B’. (f) In the year 1995, the Government Resolution dated08/06/1995 was issued, which introduced the time bound promotionscheme granting promotional pay-scales to the employees who werenot promoted for a period of 12 years, subject to the fulfillment ofterms and conditions as stated in the Government Resolution. Thiswas subsequently clarified by Government Resolutions dated01.11.1995 and 20.03.1997.(g)The petitioners’ case is that, in the year 1995, they wereworking on pay-scale of Rs.2000-3200 and they were not promotedsince 1981 for more than 12 years, and therefore, they were entitled tothe benefit of the Government Resolution dated 08/06/1995. 12174.22wp(9) (h)The petitioners also made reference to an order dated11.01.2017 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.346/2009 whichwas a petition by the Sectional Engineers working under various ZillaParishads who were granted benefit of the Government Resolutiondated 08/06/1995, which was subsequently withdrawn and challengewas raised thereto. It is stated that in view of conferment of benefitupon those persons, similar benefit be granted to the petitioners. (i)It is stated that on 01/04/2010, the Government introducedModified Service Assured Career Scheme (MACP) for employees whowould complete 12 years without promotion on the same posts.(j)After referring to the series of Government Resolutions,the petitioners have stated that, by Circular dated 13/06/2016, thesecond benefit under the MACP scheme which was conferred uponsome Sectional Engineers, were withdrawn and the action waschallenged before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai.On failure before the Tribunal, the challenge was carried to this courtat the Principal seat, Mumbai vide Writ Petition No.2605/2017. Thispetition was decided by judgment and order dated 06.02.2019 bywhich the benefit was ordered to be restored upon the petitionerstherein. 12174.22wp(10) (k)The Petitioners have relied upon the judgment dated06/02/2019 delivered in Writ Petition No.2605/2017 to contend that, inview of the conclusions in the judgment, benefits of similar nature,based on the Government Resolution dated 08/06/1995, be conferredupon them.(l)The petitioners have stated that, for claiming the benefitof the Government Resolution dated 08/06/1995, they submitted therepresentations on 22/02/2019 on-wards, which were rejected by therespondents by the orders dated 08/11/2019, 14/11/2019 and10/06/2021.(m)Feeling aggrieved by rejection of their representations, thepetitioners filed Writ Petition No.2006/2020 before the Principal seatof this court, which came to be transferred to this bench on28/01/2020. By an order dated 18/11/2021, this Court had transferredthe petition to the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal at ChhatrapatiSambhajinagar, which was registered as Transfer ApplicationNo.09/2021.(n)The Transfer Application was contested before theTribunal and by judgment and order dated 17/02/2022, it was 12174.22wp(11) dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioners filed Review ApplicationNo.02/2022 before the Tribunal which was also dismissed by an orderdated 10/08/2022.(o)Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order in theTransfer Application No.09/2021 and Review Application No.02/2022,the petitioners have filed the instant petition.4.The petitioners have assailed the judgment of the Tribunalby raising basic contention that, although they were conferred with thebenefits in the year 1984, the same were only symbolic in nature andin view of Government Resolution dated 08.06.1995 they are entitledto grant of actual financial benefits. The petitioners have heavilyrelied upon the observations of this Court in the judgment delivered atthe Principal seat in Writ Petition No.2605/2017, in which it was heldthat the upgradation granted to the Sectional Engineers under theGovernment Resolution dated 16/04/1984 did not constitute grant ofnon-functional pay-scales and cannot be treated as conferring firstbenefit under the Government Resolution dated 01/04/2010. On thebasis of the observations of this Court with respect to grant of benefitpursuant to Government Resolution dated 01/04/2010, the petitionershave averred that, they are entitled to grant of similar benefits based on
Legal Reasoning
12174.22wp(14) No.2605/2017, which pertained to the decision of withdrawal ofbenefits and consequent recovery of money. It is, thus apparent that,only after the judgment in Writ Petition No.2605/2017, the petitionershave raised their claim by contending that they are a similar set ofemployees, and therefore, the benefit under Government Resolutiondated 08.06.1995 must be conferred upon them. It has to be noted thatthe petitioners have relied upon orders passed in the matters ofengineers of various zilla parishads and other departments on similarlines only to seek benefit of similar nature granted in their respectivecases. It has to be noted that none of the judgments or orders referredto in the petition directly deal with the issue about grant of benefitunder the Government Resolution dated 08/06/1995. Even thejudgment in Writ Petition No.8009/2021 as referred to in prayer clauseB2 does not deal with this issue. The petitioners had relied upon theorder in Writ Petition No.346/2009 passed by this Court, however, thesame had dealt with the issue about withdrawal of benefits which werealready conferred. Therefore, although the petitioners have relied uponthe position of law that, when one set of employees have been grantedsome relief, the other set of employees should also be benefited, thereis no judgment or order, placed on record demonstrating grant of samebenefits to any other set of employees. 12174.22wp(15) 9.In support of his submissions, advocate Irale Patil, learnedcounsel for the petitioners relied upon various GovernmentResolutions as referred to in Writ Petition and has submitted that,although status of gazetted officers was conferred upon the petitioners,they were not conferred with actual benefits, and therefore, theirupgradation was only symbolic. He relied upon the observations ofthis Court in the judgment delivered in Writ Petition No.2605/2017,which had held that the upgradation of the Sectional Engineers underthe Government Resolution dated 16/04/1984 did not constitute grantof non-functional pay-scales. In support of his submission, he alsorelied upon judgment dated 02/08/2022, passed by this Court in CivilWrit Petition No.8009/2021 with connected matters, based on thejudgment in Writ Petition No.2605/2017. In short, the submissions oflearned advocate Irale Patil for the petitioners revolves around theobservations in the matter of Sectional Engineers in Writ PetitionNo.2605/2017 and the petitioners are raising their claim on similarlines for claiming benefit under the Government Resolution dated08/06/1995.10.It has to be noted that Writ Petition No.2605/2017 wasfiled by the engineers being aggrieved by Circular dated 13/06/2016, 12174.22wp(16) by which the benefits which were conferred upon them werewithdrawn and excess payment was directed to be recovered againstthem. While examining legality of the Circular, the issue with respectto legality of withdrawal of benefits and recovery was decided by thisCourt, and there is no positive direction about grant of any additionalbenefit. Therefore, the issue with respect to entitlement of thepetitioners to the benefit under Government Resolution dated08/06/1995 needs to be independently considered. The petitionershave created an impression that, in view of grant of benefit videjudgment in Writ Petition No.2605/2017 and similar such matters, theyare simply entitled to the same benefit under Government Resolutiondated 08.06.1995. However, on careful reading of the judgment inWrit Petition No.2605/2017, it becomes clear that the issue aboutentitlement based on Government Resolution dated 08/06/1995 wasnot decided.11.As regards Government Resolution dated 08.06.1995 bywhich Time Bound Promotion Scheme was introduced, it is crucial tonote that in the year 2001, the Government introduced Assured CareerProgression Scheme (ACPS) vide Government Resolution dated20.07.2001, to address the issue of stagnation. By this GovernmentResolution, the erstwhile Time Bound Promotion Scheme introduced 12174.22wp(17) by Government Resolution dated 08.06.1995 was repealed. It ispertinent to note that the petitioners have filed on record the copy ofGovernment Resolution dated 20.07.2001 at Exhibit L to the petition.Even the judgment in Writ Petition No.2605/2017 has referred to thisdevelopment about repeal of Government Resolution dated08.06.1995. Under such circumstances, the claims raised by thepetitioners on the basis of Government Resolution dated 08.06.1995appear to be unfounded. 12.Despite this being the position, if the contentionscanvassed by the petitioners are considered, it has to be noted that aperusal of the Government Resolution dated 08/06/1995 clearly showsthat the same is applicable to the employees of Group ‘C’ and group‘D’, who have not been promoted for a period of 12 years and toremove stagnation, the policy to grant them time bound pay-scales wasintroduced by the Government. The petitioners were not falling inGroup ‘C’ and Group ‘D’. They have been conferred with the benefitvide Government Resolution dated 16/04/1984. The petitioners are allretired employees and they have not raised any grievance since theyear 1995 till they were in service. The Government Resolution dated08/06/1995 and the subsequent clarifications vide Government 12174.22wp(18) Resolutions dated 01/11/1995 and 20/03/1997 do not provide forconferment of benefits on employees of Group ‘B’. The petitionershave raised the grievance in the year 2019 on-wards withoutdemonstrating any reasons for delay and laches. 13.The petitioners have failed to demonstrate applicability ofthe Government Resolution dated 08/06/1995 and their entitlement togrant of benefits under it. Reliance placed upon the observations inWrit Petition No.2605/2017 and judgment in Writ PetitionNo.8009/2021 is misplaced since neither of these cases deal with theissue about grant of benefit under the Government Resolution dated08/06/1995. 14.Reliance placed by the petitioners upon the position oflaw, as laid down in the judgment of State of U. P. & Others Vs.Arvind Kumar Shrivastav, [2015 (1) SCC 347], laying down the lawthat ‘normal rule is that, when one set of employees is given relief bythe Court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alikeby extending that benefits’, is also misplaced since the petitioners havefailed to demonstrate grant of same relief to any such set of employeesas claimed by them in this writ petition. Although there is no quarrel
Arguments
12174.22wp(12) the Government Resolution dated 08/06/1995. The petitioners haveheavily relied upon the position of law laid down in variousjudgments, holding that, when one set of employees is given relief bythe Courts, the other identically situated persons need to be treatedsimilarly by extending similar benefits. To highlight the legal position,the petitioners have relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court inState of UP vs. Arvind Kumar Shrivastava reported at [(2015) 1 SCC347]. The petitioners have also relied upon the orders passed in thematters of Sectional Engineers of other Zilla Parishads and otherdepartments to claim that they are also entitled to similar benefits.5.The respondents have opposed the petition on the groundof delay and laches, amongst other grounds of merits. The respondentshave put forward their stand that the petitioners’ claim for grantingbenefit of the Government Resolution dated 08/06/1995 raised viderepresentations submitted in the year 2019 on-wards, cannot beentertained on any count. The respondents have submitted that theGovernment Resolution dated 08/06/1995 conferred benefits upon theemployees of Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ and the petitioners, beingemployees of Group “B’, were not entitled to any benefit. As regardsthe judgment in Writ Petition No.2605/2017, it is submitted that itdoes not lay down any proposition of law, based on which, 12174.22wp(13) the petitioners, being Sectional Engineers could claim benefit of timebound promotion scheme framed under the Government Resolutiondated 08/06/1995. It is also submitted that the petitioners have got thebenefit based on Government Resolution dated 16.04.1984 and havealso got revised pay scale in the year 1988.6.In support of their arguments, the petitioners have filed onrecord the written notes of arguments reiterating their contentions inthe writ petition. The respondents have also filed their written notes ofarguments justifying the impugned judgment of the Tribunal.7.We have considered the rival contentions and perused thepapers. We have heard advocate Shri Irale Patil, learned counsel for thepetitioners and advocate Shri M.K. Goyanka, learned AdditionalGovernment Pleader for the respondents/ State.8.The basic grievance of the petitioners is with respect totheir entitlement to the benefit under the Government Resolution dated08/06/1995. It has to be noted that the petitioners have raised theirclaim by their representations which were submitted in the year 2019on-wards as stated in the petition. The contentions of the petitionersare also based on the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition
Decision
12174.22wp(19) with the position of law as laid down in this judgment, however, thesame is not of any assistant to the petitioners. 15.In the light of consideration of all the above mentionedfactual and legal aspects, we are of the considered view that thepetitioners have failed to establish their entitlement under GovernmentResolution dated 08/06/1995. 16.On careful consideration of the contentions raised by theparties with respect to challenge to the impugned judgment of theTribunal, we are of the considered view that there is no perversity orarbitrariness in the impugned judgment of the Tribunal, and therefore,interference in the impugned judgment is unwarranted.17.In view of the above mentioned factual and legal aspects,the instant petition deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismissedwith no order as to costs.18.Rule is discharged with the above terms. (PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)sjk