WP 3053/11 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 3053/2011
Sriniwas s/o Paurshuramji Meshram,
aged 65 years, occupation retired,
resident of Gautam Chowk, Sindewahi,
District Chandrapur. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
1. The Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur,
through its Chief Executive Officer.
2. The State of Maharashtra,
through Secretary,
Department of Rural Development
and Water Conservation,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032. RESPONDENTS
Shri P.D. Meghe, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri M.M. Sudame, counsel for the respondent no.1.
Shri I.J. Damle, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent no.2.
CORAM :SMT.VASANTI A NAIK AND
A.D. UPADHYE, JJ.
6 JUNE, 2017.
DATE : TH
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT.VASANTI A NAIK, J.)
By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the respondent no.1-Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur, dated 30.10.2010 as far as it denies the benefit of the higher pay-scale to the petitioner from 01.10.1994 to 01.10.1995. The petitioner has also sought a direction against the respondents to pay the arrears of difference of salary to the petitioner on the basis of the government resolution. ::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2017 00:38:20 :::
WP 3053/11 2 Judgment
2. The petitioner was appointed as a Muster Clerk by the respondent-Zilla Parishad in the year 1963. After completing more than thirty years of service, the petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation in the year 2003. As per the policy decision of the State Government, dated 20.05.1999, a cadre of Civil Engineering Assistant was created and 76 posts in the said cadre were allotted to Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur. Since the petitioner was considered as a Civil Engineering Assistant due to the merger of the cadre as per the Government Resolution dated 20.05.1999, according to the petitioner, he was entitled to the pay-scale of a Junior Engineer. Basing his claim on the said Government Resolution, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.1434 of 2009 seeking similar benefits, as were granted to his juniors. According to the petitioner, since his juniors were granted higher pay-scale from 01.10.1994, the petitioner was also entitled to the same. This Court partly allowed the writ petition by the judgment dated 27.01.2010 and directed the Zilla Parishad to grant the benefit of higher pay-scale to the petitioner from the date on which similar benefit was granted to his juniors. In pursuance of the directions of this Court in Writ Petition No.1434 of 2009, the respondent-Zilla Parishad granted the benefit of higher pay-scale to the petitioner with effect from 01.10.1995. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of higher pay- scale with effect from 01.10.1994 and the action on the part of the Zilla Parishad of granting benefit to the petitioner from 01.10.1995 is bad in ::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2017 00:38:20 ::: WP 3053/11 3 Judgment law inasmuch as his juniors were granted the benefit with effect from 01.10.1994. So also, the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order of the Zilla Parishad informing the petitioner that the petitioner would not be entitled to actual monetary benefits of higher pay-scale with effect from 01.10.1995 and would be entitled to the same after the impugned order was passed in October-2010. Since the petitioner is not satisfied with the grant of notional benefits, the petitioner has filed this petition seeking actual monetary benefits with effect from 01.10.1994.
3. Shri Meghe, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has referred to the order of the Zilla Parishad dated 12.02.2008 at Annexure-2 to canvas that the Muster Clerks, that were appointed subsequent to the appointment of the petitioner and were junior to the petitioner, were granted the benefit of higher pay-scale with effect from 01.10.1994. It is stated by referring to the chart incorporated in Annexure-2 that the Muster Clerks who were appointed from the year 1971 onwards were granted the benefit of higher pay-scale from 01.10.1994 while granting the benefit to the petitioner with effect from 01.10.1995 though the petitioner was appointed in the year 1963. It is submitted that there is no propriety in the action on the part of the State Government and the Zilla Parishad to deny actual monetary benefits flowing from the order of grant of higher pay-scale when the State Government and the Zilla Parishad has permitted the grant of higher pay- ::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2017 00:38:20 :::
WP 3053/11 4 Judgment scale to the Junior Muster Clerks with effect from 01.10.1994 only. It is submitted that the action on the part of the State Government and the respondent-Zilla Parishad is arbitrary and discriminatory.
4. Shri Damle, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State Government, has supported the action of the State Government. It is, however fairly stated that it could be seen from Annexure-2 as also the earlier judgment of this Court in the case of the petitioner that similar benefits as are granted to the junior employees are liable to be granted to the petitioner also.
5. Shri Sudame, the learned counsel for the Zilla Parishad, has defended the action of the Zilla Parishad. It is submitted that the decision to grant only notional benefits to the petitioner is based on the Government decision, dated 29.09.2008. It is submitted that an appropriate order may be passed in the circumstances of the case.
6. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the documents annexed to the petition, specially the order dated 12.02.2008 on which great reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears that neither the State Government nor the Zilla Parishad would be entitled to discriminate between similarly situated employees. By the order of the Zilla Parishad dated 12.02.2008, ::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2017 00:38:20 ::: WP 3053/11 5 Judgment several Muster Clerks that were junior to the petitioner were granted the benefit of the higher pay-scale with effect from 01.10.1994. The order of the Zilla Parishad dated 12.02.2008 makes it clear that the employees mentioned in the said order, who were junior to the petitioner, were granted the actual monetary benefits from 01.10.1994. The order dated 12.02.2008 clearly shows that the Muster Clerks, that were appointed after the petitioner, were granted the benefit of the higher pay-scale with effect from 01.10.1994. If that is so, we do not find any propriety in the action on the part of the Zilla Parishad in granting the benefit of higher pay-scale to the petitioner with effect from 01.10.1995 when this Court has, by the judgment dated 27.01.2010 in Writ Petition No.1434 of 2009, directed the Zilla Parishad to grant similar benefit to the petitioner as was granted to the other Muster Clerks who were junior to him. It appears from the order of the Zilla Parishad dated 12.02.2008 that several employees that were junior to the petitioner were granted benefit of higher pay-scale with effect from 01.10.1994. The petitioner would also be entitled to the benefit of the higher pay-scale from the said date and non-grant of the benefit to the petitioner from the said date would be violative of the directions issued by this Court in the judgment in the case of the petitioner himself. We also do not find any propriety in the action on the part of the State Government in asking the Zilla Parishad to grant actual monetary benefits flowing from the order granting higher pay-scale to the petitioner from the date of the impugned order that was passed in ::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2017 00:38:20 ::: WP 3053/11 6 Judgment October-2010. When similarly situated employees were granted actual monetary benefits in terms of the order dated 12.02.2008 with effect from 01.10.1994, the respondents cannot be heard to say that similar benefits would not be extended to the petitioner. In the circumstances of the case, it would be necessary to direct the respondents to grant actual monetary benefit of higher pay-scale to the petitioner with effect from 01.10.1994.
7. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned order is modified. The respondents are directed to grant the higher pay-scale and actual monetary benefits to the petitioner with effect from 01.10.1994. The actual monetary benefits should be released in favour of the petitioner within three months.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
APTE
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2017 00:38:20 :::