Bombay High Court
Asha Kishorilal Banarasi vs Municipal Commr.,Nagpur & 2 ... on 22 July, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
1/6 2207WP3457.98-Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3457 OF 1998
PETITIONER:- Asha Kishorilal Banarasi, Aged about 48
years, Occ.: Assistant Education Officer, R/o
701, Amar Palace, West Central Road, Near
Yeshwant Stadium, Dhantoli, Nagpur-12.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) Municipal Commissioner, Nagpur
ig Corporation, Civil Lines, Nagpur-1.
2) Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Through its
Secretary.
3) Additional Deputy Commissioner, Nagpur
Corporation, Civil Lines, Nagpur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs.Meenakshi Iyer, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. S.M. Puranik, counsel for the respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK &
MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : 22.07.2016
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A. Naik, J.)
By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of
the Nagpur Municipal Corporation, dated 16/10/1998, rejecting the
prayer of the petitioner to draw the difference of 10% presumptive pay
of higher scale of the Education Officer.
2/6 2207WP3457.98-Judgment
2) The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Education
Officer on 13/09/1991. A resolution was passed by the Municipal
Corporation on 02/12/1997 to promote the petitioner on the post of
Education Officer (Primary) that was vacant from April, 1997. The
concerned officer of the Nagpur Municipal Corporation noted in the
confidential report that the petitioner was eligible for promotion to the
post of Education Officer as her confidential reports from 1995 were
good. It is the case of the petitioner that, though the post of Education
Officer was vacant, the petitioner was directed to hold the charge of the
post of Education Officer, in addition to the charge of Assistant
Education Officer that she was holding with presumptive pay of 10% till
permanent arrangement was made. Though the petitioner performed
the duties of the Education Officer after holding the charge of the post
of Education Officer, in addition to the charge of Assistant Education
Officer till 2014, when she voluntarily retired from service, the
petitioner was not paid additional 10% allowance that was liable to be
paid for holding the charge of the post of Education Officer. The
application made by the petitioner for grant of 10% additional allowance
was rejected by the impugned communication, dated 16/10/1998 on the
ground that 10% additional allowance cannot be granted to an
employee for more than a period of one year. The order of the
Additional Deputy Municipal Commissioner, Nagpur, dated 16/10/1998
is impugned by the petitioner in the instant petition.
3/6 2207WP3457.98-Judgment
3) Smt. Meenakshi Iyer, the learned counsel for the
petitioner, submitted that when the post of Education Officer was
vacant and the Corporation had endorsed that the petitioner was
entitled to be promoted on the post of Education Officer, the petitioner
was directed to hold the charge of Education Officer, in addition to the
charge of Assistant Education Officer. It is stated that the petitioner
was not granted 10% of the pay scale that was payable to an Education
Officer, but was granted 10% of the pay scale that was payable to an
Assistant Education Officer only for one year. It is stated that the
respondent-Corporation thereafter refused to grant additional 10%
allowance to the petitioner till 15/06/2004, when the petitioner stood
voluntarily retired from service, on the ground that an employee
holding additional charge of a higher post was entitled to 10%
additional allowance only for a period of one year.
4) Shri S.M.Puranik, the learned counsel for the respondents,
supported the order of the Additional Deputy Municipal Commissioner,
Nagpur. It is stated that though the post of Education Officer was
vacant, the petitioner was not actually promoted to the said post and
was directed to hold the charge of the post of Education Officer, in
addition to the charge of the post of Assistant Education Officer. It is
submitted that since additional 10% allowance is normally granted to
4/6 2207WP3457.98-Judgment
an employee only for a period of one year from the date on which the
additional charge of the post is granted to him/her, the Additional
Deputy Municipal Commissioner rightly refused to grant additional 10%
allowance to the petitioner for holding the charge of the Education
Officer.
5) On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find
that the petitioner is entitled to the relief claimed. Though the post of
Education Officer was vacant and the petitioner was held to be eligible
for promotion to the said post, the said post was not filled by promoting
the petitioner or any Assistant Education Officer on the said post and
the petitioner was directed to hold the charge of the Education Officer,
in addition to the charge of the Assistant Education Officer, on which
she was appointed. If the petitioner was discharging the duties of the
Education Officer, till she was permitted to voluntarily retire from
service in the year 2004, the Municipal Corporation ought to have
granted additional 10% allowance to the petitioner. In our view, the
petitioner would be entitled to additional 10% allowance, as she had
actually performed the duties of the Education Officer, in addition to
the duties of the Assistant Education Officer from the time, she was
directed to hold the charge of the post of Education Officer, till she
voluntarily retired from service.
5/6 2207WP3457.98-Judgment
6) Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is
allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. We direct the
respondent-Corporation to pay additional 10% allowance to the
petitioner for the period during which she was holding the charge of the
post of Education Officer and was performing the duties of the said
post. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to
costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
6/6 2207WP3457.98-Judgment
C E R T I F I C A T E
I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true and correct copy of
original signed Judgment.
Uploaded by : G.S.Khunte, Uploaded on : 27/07/2016
P.A.to Hon'ble Judge
