1 wp2076.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.2076 OF 2017
1. Smt. Surekha Rajeev Darwhekar,
Aged 60 years, Occ. Retired, r/o.
'Mangala' Plot No.25, Deendayal
Nagar, Nagpur-22.
2. Smt. Sumitra Bhimrao Ganar,
Aged 61 years, Occ. Retired, r/o.
MIG 42, Ridge Road Housing Board
Colony, Vishwakarma Nagar,
Nagpur.
3. Smt. Pushpa Murlidhar Wankhede,
Aged 60 years, Occ. Retired, r/o.
19, Gurukrupa Layout,
Bhagwan Nagar, Nagpur
4. Smt. Malati Mahadeo Tayade,
Aged about 59 years, Occ.Retired,
r/o. Nalanda Sahaniwas,
Banerjee Layout, Bhagwan Nagar
Road, Nagpur-27.
::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 02:41:24 :::
2 wp2076.17.odt
5. Smt. Meena John Nehmaye,
Aged about 57 years, Occ.Service,
r/o. Shriram Wadi, Plot No.51-52,
Ayodhya Nagar, Nagpur-24.
6. Smt. Manda Yadao Zodape,
Aged about 59 years, Occ. Retired,
r/o.58, MIG Hsg. Board Qtr. No.3/5,
Vaishali Nagar, Nagpur-17.
7. Smt. Kumud Chandrashekhar Bhave,
Aged about 56 years, Occ. Service,
r/o.202, Ganga Residency, Besa Road,
Manewada, Nagpur-34.
8. Smt. Vidya Vijay Panchabhai
Aged about 59 years, Occ. Retired,
r/o. Shrinath Saingar, Manewada,
Nagpur.
9. Smt. Panchasheela Vitthal Khobragade,
Aged about 59 years, Occ. Retired,
r/o.Plot No.82, Banerjee Layout,
Bhagwan Nagar, Nagpur-27.
10.Smt. Meri Peeter Leo,
Aged about 61 years, Occ. Retired,
r/o.203, Mularidhar Apartment,
Wanjari Nagar, Nagpur-09.
11.Smt. Shakuntala P. Athawale,
Aged about 62 years, Occ. Retired,
r/o.Q.No.102, Fancard, Estate,
RMS Colony, Anant Nagar,
Nagpur.
12.Smt. Sulekha Mukund Joshi,
Aged about 59 years, Occ.Retired,
r/o.CNE 002, Shat Tarka Apartment,
Surendra Nagar, Nagpur-15.
::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 02:41:24 :::
3 wp2076.17.odt
13.Smt. Pramila Laxman Shahane
Aged about 59 years, Occ.Retired,
r/o.A 301, Yoglaxmi Complex,
Modi No.1, Sitabuldi,
Nagpur-12.
14.Smt. Sulochana Narayan Wadatkar
Aged about 62 years, Occ.Retired,
r/o. Chandika Nagar 2, Plot No.110,
Manewada, Besa Road,
Nagpur-27.
15.Smt. Tara Rambhau Bhawalkar,
Aged about 58 years, Occ. Retired,
r/o.99, Shirdi Nagar, Manewada
Road, Nagpur.
16.Meena Ambadas Nemade,
Aged about 57 years, Occ. Service,
r/o.MIG 11/2, Winkar Colony,
Manewada, Nagpur.
17.Smt. Alka Pramod Wankhede
Aged about 57 years, Occ. Service,
r/o.Ratan Nagar, Plot No.60,
Gadge Baba Layout,
Hanuman Nagar, Nagpur-09.
18.Smt.Usha Vidyasagar Tagde,
Aged about 59 years, Occ.Retired,
r/o. Shivraj Nagar No.1, Road No.5,
Plot No.5, Vishwakarma Nagar,
Nagpur-27.
19.Smt. Sudha Ram Khandade,
Aged about 59 years, Occ.Retired,
r/o.New Nandanwan, Plot No.675,
Nagpur.
::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 02:41:24 :::
4 wp2076.17.odt
20.Smt. Vijaya Sudhir Killedar,
Aged about 59 years, Occ.Retired,
Plot No.78, Wathoda Layout,
Adiwasi Society, Nagpur-09.
21.Smt. Kala Kishor Thaware
Aged about 60 years, Occ.Retired,
r/o. Plot No.196, Gali No.3,
Jawahar Nagar, Manewada Road,
Nagpur.
22.Smt. Shobha Pundalik Mendhekar
Aged about 60 years, Occ. Retired,
r/o.41, Ramjivan Choudhar
Apartment, Kirda Chowk,
Hanumannagar, Nagpur-24.
23.Smt. Yashodhara Dinkarrao Moon,
Aged about 60 years, Occ.Retired,
r/o. Plot No.8, Galli No.28,
Chandramani Nagar,
Nagpur-27.
24.Suman Jivan Indurkar
Aged about 58 years, Occ.Retired,
r/o. Plot No.50, Awale Nagar,
Nari Road, Teka Naka,
Nagpur-27. ..... PETITIONERS
// Versus //
1.The State Of Maharashtra,
through the Secretary,
Department of Medical Education
and Research, Mantralaya,
Mumbai 400 032.
::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 02:41:24 :::
5 wp2076.17.odt
2.The Director,
Directorate of Medical Education
& Research, Arogya Bhavan, St.
George's Hospital Compound,
Near CST Station, Mumbai.
3.The Dean,
Government Medical College &
Hospital, Nagpur. ...... RESPONDENTS
____________________________________________________________
Mr.P.D.Meghe, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr.S.S.Doifode, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
____________________________________________________________
***********
Date of reserving the Judgment : .12.2017.
Date of pronouncing the Judgment : 22.12.2017.
***********
CORAM : R.K.DESHPANDE
AND
M.G.GIRATKAR, JJ.
JUDGMENT (Per M.G.Giratkar, J) :
1. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for the respective parties.
2. All the petitioners have prayed to quash and set aside the Judgment and Order dt.7.11.2016 passed by Member (J), ::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 02:41:24 ::: 6 wp2076.17.odt Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, Bench at Nagpur in O.A. No.132 of 2016. They have also prayed to allow O.A. No.132 of 2016 in its entirety and direct the respondents to grant promotional pay scale to the petitioners on completion of 24 years as per Government Resolution dt.1.4.2010 and accordingly make the pay fixation of the petitioners and release the arrears on account of difference of salary and also revise the retiral benefits and pension accordingly.
3. It is submitted that the petitioners have retired as staff Nurse from the service of respondent no.3 except petitioner no.7, who is going to retire on 31.10.2017. The petitioners, after having passed their Nursing Course, were appointed as Staff Nurse under respondent no.3. Petitioners have rendered unblemished satisfactory service and at no point of time, they were served with any adverse communication during entire span of their service.
4. It is submitted that, on 8.6.1995, the Government of Maharashtra adopted a policy giving benefits to their employees who have not received promotion after a period of twelve years. Petitioners received the benefit of promotional pay scale in the year ::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 02:41:24 ::: 7 wp2076.17.odt 1995, which is w.e.f. 1.10.1994 given to those who have completed service of 12 years.
5. It is submitted that, in the year 2007-08, promotional posts became available. Hence, the respondents issued order of promotion to the petitioners. However, those postings were not suitable. Therefore, the petitioners requested for promotional posting on their original place of posting. Subsequently, their request was considered by the Authority and the petitioners were posted to their choice posting on promotional post. The respondent/Authority denied second time bound promotion to the petitioners on the ground that they refused promotion. But, in fact, the petitioners did not refuse promotion. They requested for choice posting due to some family difficulties. Their request was later on considered. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners refused promotional postings.
6. It is submitted that the similarly situated employees who were transferred but who had not joined on the promotional post at transferred place were again given their choice posting. All those were given benefit of second time bound pay scale. ::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 02:41:24 :::
8 wp2076.17.odt
7. All the petitioners requested respondent/Authority to grant second time bound promotional pay scale after completion of 24 years as per Government Resolution dt.1.4.2010. But, the respondent/Authority has wrongly rejected their claim. It is submitted that granting second time bound promotional pay scale as per order dt.18.12.2015 of the similarly situated employees like the petitioners, who approached the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Mumbai in O.A. No.569 of 2014, is allowed. The case of petitioners is similar to the case in O.A. No.569 of 2014, decided by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Mumbai. However. O.A. No.132 of 2016 filed by the petitioners before the MAT, Bench at Nagpur, wrongly rejected vide Judgment and Order dt.7.11.2016. Therefore, the petitioners have prayed to grant second time bound promotional pay scale as per Government Resolution No.1.4.2010.
8. Submission of respondent/Authority is that the petitioners refused their promotional posting and therefore, they are not entitled for second time bound promotional pay scale as per Government Resolution dt.1.4.2010.
::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 02:41:24 :::
9 wp2076.17.odt
9. Heard Mr.P.D.Meghe, learned Counsel for the petitioners. He has pointed out material documents. Learned Counsel has pointed out the Judgment and Order in O.A. No.569 of 2014, decided by MAT, Bench at Mumbai. Learned Counsel has submitted that there is no dispute that all the petitioners had completed 24 years of their respective services on their original post before the date of promotional posting. Hence, they are entitled for the second time bound promotional pay scale as per Government Resolution dt.1.4.2010. At last, it is prayed to allow the petition and to direct the respondent/Authority, as prayed for.
10. Heard Mr.S.S.Doifode, learned A.P.P. for Respondents. He has submitted that all the petitioners were promoted, but they refused to join their respective postings. Therefore, they are not entitled for second time bound promotional pay scale as per Government Resolution dt.1.4.2010.
11. There is no dispute that all the petitioners have completed 24 years of their respective services on their original post. There is no dispute that they were granted first time bound promotional pay scale. There is no dispute that they are entitled for ::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 02:41:24 ::: 10 wp2076.17.odt second time bound promotional pay scale as per Government Resolution dt.1.4.2010. It is the defence of respondent/Authority that the petitioners were promoted and transfer order was issued. The petitioners have not joined their respective transferred postings and therefore, they are not entitled for second time bound promotion as per condition in Government Resolution dt.1.4.2010.
12. There is no dispute that all the petitioners were promoted and they were transferred from their original place of posting. There is no dispute that the petitioners did not join their tranferred posting. All they had requested to give promotional posting at their respective place of choice. All the petitioners submitted their difficulties to join their new posting of the promotional post. There is no dispute that, later on, the respondent/Authority considered the difficulties of petitioner and granted them promotional posting of their choice.
13. Once the difficulties of the petitioners are considered and they are given their choice posting, this itself shows that the respondent/Authority has not considered that the petitioners refused their transferred posting. In such circumstances, the ::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 02:41:24 ::: 11 wp2076.17.odt respondent/Authority cannot say that the petitioners refused to join their promotional post and therefore, they are not entitled for second time bound promotional pay scale.
14. Learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that some of the employees similarly situated as like the petitioners namely one Smt.Autkar was also transferred on promotional post. She was again given posting of her choice. The said employee was given benefit of second time bound promotional pay scale as per Government Resolution dt.1.4.2010.
15. The facts in the present petition and the facts in the case before the MAT, Bench at Mumbai in O.A. No.569 of 2014 are near about the same. The MAT, Bench at Mumbai has given directions to the respondent/Authority to grant second time bound promotional pay scale to the petitioners after completion of 24 years of their respective service.
16. There is no dispute that all the petitioners have completed continuous 24 years of service on their original post before joining on the promotional post. Therefore, they are entitled ::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 02:41:24 ::: 12 wp2076.17.odt for second time bound promotional pay scale as per Government Resolution dt.1.4.2010. Learned Member (J), Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Nagpur has not considered the case of petitioners properly and has wrongly rejected O.A. No.132 of 2016. In view of above discussion, we are inclined to allow the petition. Hence, we pass the following order.
// ORDER //
i) The petition is allowed.
ii) We quash and set aside the Judgment and
Order dt.7.11.2016 passed by Member (J), Maharashtra Administrative Tribinal, Mumbai, Bench at Nagpur in O.A. No.132 of 2016.
iii) We allow O.A. No.132 of 2016 in its entirety and direct the respondents/Authorities to grant promotional pay scale to the petitioners on completion of 24 years of service as per Government Resolution dt.1.4.2010.
iv) The respondents/Authorities are directed to make fixation of all the petitioners within a period of ::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 02:41:24 ::: 13 wp2076.17.odt two months and release the arrears on account of difference of salary and also revise the retiral benefits and pension of petitioners accordingly.
No order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE [jaiswal] ::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 02:41:24 ::: 14 wp2076.17.odt ::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 02:41:24 :::