Bombay High Court
Laxman Narayanrao Karmalkar vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 21 June, 2016
Bench: S.S. Shinde
1 WP3706.16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 3706 OF 2016
Laxman s/o Narayanrao Karmalkar,
age 63 years, Occ. Retired as
Registrar, District Court, Beed,
R/o Beed ...Petitioner
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra,
Department of Law & Judiciary,
Mantralaya, Mumbai,
2. Accountant General,
through its Accounts Officer,
Pay Verification Unit
Department, Aurangabad,
3. Principal District Judge
(In administrative capacity),
District Court, Beed,
4. The Principal Secretary,
Law and Judiciary Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai ...Respondents
.....
Shri G.L.Deshpande, advocate for petitioner
Shri S.K.Kadam, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 4
Shri C.K.Shinde, advocate for respondent no.3
.....
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3717 OF 2016
Bharat S/O Manohar Gonde,
age 59 years, Occ. Retired as
Assistant Superintendent,
Civil Court, Junior Division, Wadwani,
R/o Samarth Colony,
Pimpar Gavahan Road, Beed ...Petitioner
::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:11:55 :::
2 WP3706.16
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra,
Department of Law & Judiciary,
Mantralaya, Mumbai,
2. Accountant General,
through its Accounts Officer,
Pay Verification Unit
Department, Aurangabad,
3. Accounts Department,
Civil Court, Wadwani,
4. The Principal Secretary,
Law and Judiciary Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
5. Civil Judge, Junior Division,
Wadwani
in Administrative capacity ...Respondents
.....
Shri G.L.Deshpande, advocate for petitioner
Shri V.H.Dighe, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 4
Shri C.K.Shinde, advocate for respondent nos.3 and 5
.....
CORAM : S.S.SHINDE
AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE OF RESERVING
THE JUDGMENT : 10.6.2016
DATE OF PRONOUNCING
THE JUDGMENT : 21.6.2016
::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:11:55 :::
3 WP3706.16
JUDGMENT (Per Santigrao S. Patil, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
With the consent of the learned counsel for the
petitioners and the learned A.G.P., the Writ
Petitions are taken up for final decision.
2.
Common questions of law and facts are
involved in these Writ Petitions. Hence they are
being disposed of by this common judgment.
3. The petitioner namely Laxman Karmalkar in
Writ Petition No. 3706 of 2016, who ultimately
retired as the Registrar of the District Court,
Beed, during his service tenure worked as the
Assistant Superintendent in the Court of Civil
Judge, Senior Division and also as the
Superintendent on the establishment of the
District Legal Services Authority.
4. The petitioner namely Bharat Gonde in Writ
Petition No. 3717 of 2016 also had the occasion to
4 WP3706.16
work as the Assistant Superintendent in the Court
of Civil Judge, Senior Division during his service
tenure.
5. It is the case of the petitioners that
the posts of the Assistant Superintendent attached
to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division and
the Superintendent attached to the District Legal
Services Authority have not been incorporated in
the Government Resolution dated 20th October, 2011
and Government Circular, dated 8th March, 2013
whereunder the recommendations of Justice Shetti
Commission were made applicable to the employees
of the Trial Courts, and therefore, respondent
no.2 Accountant General raised objection while
verifying the pay of the petitioners that they are
not entitled to get the benefit of the
recommendations of Justice Shetti Commission in
respect of the period during which they were
serving as the Assistant Superintendents in the
Courts of Civil Judge, Senior Division, as also
when the petitioner Laxman Karmalkar was working
5 WP3706.16
as the Superintendent on the establishment of
District Legal Services Authority.
6. By these Writ Petitions, the petitioners
have challenged the communications dated 29th April
2013 and 10th September, 2014 respectively made by
respondent no.2 denying them the above mentioned
benefit of the pay scales.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the controversy involved in these
Writ Petitions is no more res integra. In support
of his contention, he cited the case of Bhaskar
s/o Niwartirao Jadhav (Writ Petition No. 11700 of
2015), decided by the Division Bench of this Court
on 2nd March, 2016. He, therefore, prays that the
Writ Petitions may be allowed, the impugned
communications may be ordered to be set aside and
the petitioners may be directed to extend the
benefit of the pay scales as recommended by
Justice Shetti Commission.
6 WP3706.16
8. The learned Assistant Government Pleader
filed affidavits-in-reply on behalf of respondent
no.2 and opposed the petitions on the ground that
the recommendations of Justice Shetti Commission
have not been made applicable to the above
mentioned posts held by the petitioners in view of
the Government Resolution, dated 8th March, 2013.
He, therefore, prays that the Writ Petitions may
be dismissed.
9. In the case of Bhaskar Niwartirao Jadhav
(supra) the following two issues were framed for
consideration.
" (i) Whether the recommendations of
Justice Shetty Commission would be
applicable to the post of Assistant
Superintendent, Civil Court, Senior
Division ?
(ii) Whether the benefits as made
available by Justice Shetty Commission
can be extended to the employees
working in the Office of the District
Legal Services Authority ?
7 WP3706.16
The said issues have been answered in the
affirmative based on the judgments in the cases of
Amanulla Khan vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.
(2016 (1) Mh.L.J. 723) and Pralhad Bhaurao Ghule
and ors. Vs Government of Maharashtra and ors.
Writ Petition No. 6297 of 2014, decided on 14th
August, 2014. It is not the case of the learned
A.G.P. that the above referred decisions have
been challenged by respondent nos.1 and 2 at any
point of time. It seems that the findings
recorded in the said judgments have got finality.
10. In the circumstances, we have no
hesitation to apply the law laid down in the above
referred judgments to the present petitions. We
hold that the petitioners are entitled to get the
benefit of the pay scales recommended by Justice
Shetti Commission even in respect of the period
when they were holding the posts of Assistant
Superintendents attached to the Civil Courts,
Senior Division or the Superintendent attached to
the District Legal Services Authority.
8 WP3706.16
11. In the result, we pass the following
order.
(i) The Writ Petitions are allowed.
(ii) The impugned communications
dated 29th April,2013 and 10th September,
2014 issued by respondent no.2 are
quashed and set aside.
(iii)
The respondents are directed to
extend the benefit of the pay scales to
the petitioners as recommended by
Justice Shetti Commission even in
respect of the period during which the
above referred posts were held by them
during their service tenures and fix
their pension or pay, as the case may
be, accordingly.
(iv) The parties shall bear their own
costs.
(v) With the above directions, Rule
is made absolute accordingly and the
Petitions are disposed of.
(SANGITRAO S. PATIL) (S.S.SHINDE)
JUDGE JUDGE
dbm/3706.16
