Bombay High Court
Shri Namdeorao S/O Dhumaji ... vs State Of Mah. And 2 Others on 15 October, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
1 Common Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 2459/2005
A. Rauf A. Majid,
Age about 47 years, Occupation: Service,
Resident of Chikhali, District Bhandara. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary,
Urban Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
2. Director of Municipal Administration,
State Transport Service building,
3rd Floor, Sir Ponchkhanwala Marg,
Worli, Mumbai - 400 025.
3. The Chief Officer,
Municipal Council, Chikhali, Distt. Buldana. RESPONDENTS
Shri V.R.. Choudhari, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri A.A. Madiwale, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos.1 and 2.
None for the respondent no.3.
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 4027/2005
Dilip s/o Ramchandra Warekar,
Aged about 51 years, occ.-service,
r/o Pandharkawada, District - Yavatmal. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary,
Department of Urban Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. Director of Municipal Administration, Mumbai.
3. Regional Director of Municipal Administration,
Amravati Region, Amravati.
4. Municipal Council, Pandharkawada,
through its Chief Officer. RESPONDENTS
Shri R.M. Ahirrao, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri A.A. Madiwale, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos.1 to 3.
None for the respondent no.4.
::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2016 00:21:50 :::
2 Common Judgment
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 4075/2005
Haribhau S/o. Govindrao Bodhkhe,
Aged about 61 Yrs., Occ. Retired employee,
R/o. : Dhantoli, Katol,
Tahsil Katol, Distt. Nagpur. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
1. State of Maharashtra,
Deptt. of Municipal Administration,
Through its Secretary, Mumbai.
2. Director, Municipal Administration,
Directorate, Mumbai.
3. Municipal Council, Katol,
Through its Chief Officer,
Office at Katol,
Tahsil Katol, Distt. Nagpur. RESPONDENTS
Shri K.V. Deshmukh, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri I.J. Damle, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos.1 and 2.
None for the respondent no.3.
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 4085/2005
Shri Madhukar Baliramji Kalbande,
Aged about 55 Years, occ. Service,
R/o Dodkipura, Katol,
Tahsil Katol, Distt. Nagpur. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
1. State of Maharashtra,
Deptt. of Municipal Administration,
Through its Secretary, Mumbai.
2. Director, Municipal Administration,
Directorate, Mumbai.
3. Municipal Council,
Through its Chief Officer,
Office at Katol, Tahsil Katol, Distt. Nagpur. RESPONDENTS
Shri K.V. Deshmukh, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri A.A. Madiwale, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos.1 and 2.
None for the respondent no.3.
::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2016 00:21:50 :::
3 Common Judgment
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 4087/2005
Namdeo Sathone (Since Dead)
through L.R.
Smt. Prabhatai Wd/o Namdeo Sathone,
Aged 63 years, Occupation : Household,
R/o. Rathi Layout, Katol,
Tah. Katol, District - Nagpur. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
1. State of Maharashtra,
Deptt. of Municipal Administration,
Through its Secretary, Mumbai.
2. Director, Municipal Administration,
Directorate, Mumbai.
3.
Municipal Council, Katol,
Through its Chief Officer,
Office at Katol, Tahsil Katol, Distt. Nagpur. RESPONDENTS
Shri K.V. Deshmukh, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri A.A. Madiwale, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos.1 and 2.
None for the respondent no.3.
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 4121/2007
Ravindra Vamanrao Khandezod,
Age about 45 years, Occupation: Service,
Resident of Dhamangaon Railway,
District: Amravati. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary,
Urban Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
2. Director of Municipal Administration,
State Transport Service Building,
3rd Floor, Sir Ponchkhanwala Marg,
Worli, Mumbai - 400 025.
3. The Chief Officer,
Municipal Dhamangaon Railway,
Distt. Amravati. RESPONDENTS
Shri V.R.. Choudhari, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri A.A. Madiwale, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos.1 and 2.
None for the respondent no.3.
::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2016 00:21:50 :::
4 Common Judgment
CORAM :SMT.VASANTI A NAIK AND
KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.
: 15 TH OCTOBER, 2016.
DATE
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT.VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
Since the issue involved in these writ petitions is identical and
since similar orders of the Director of Municipal Administration are
challenged by the petitioners, who were working on different posts in the
respective municipal councils, they are heard together and are decided by
this common judgment.
2. Some of the petitioners were granted a higher pay-scale the
1980's and some in the year 1990's. The grant of higher pay-scale to the
petitioners was approved by the Director of Municipal Administration and
the petitioners continued to receive the pay-scale so fixed in the years
1980's and 1990's, till the impugned orders were passed in the year 2004-
05. The petitioners were working on Class-III posts and some of the
petitioners were on the verge of retirement and some had already retired
when the impugned orders lowering their pay-scale was passed by the
Director of Municipal Administration in the year 2004-05. While
admitting these writ petitions, we had stayed the impugned orders passed
by the Director of Municipal Administration, with the result that the
retired petitioners continued to receive pension as per the higher pay-
scale and the petitioners that were in service and were due for retirement
continued to receive their salary in the higher pay-scale that was fixed in
5 Common Judgment
the years 1980s and 1990s. In a writ petition filed by one of the
employees bearing Writ Petition No.1494 of 2005, this court had quashed
the order passed by the Director of Municipal Administration on
01.11.2004 in respect of the petitioner in that case and hence, the
petitioner in Writ Petition No.1494 of 2005 is receiving the pensionary
benefits in the higher pay-scale that was fixed in his case in the year
1986. In the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, it
would not be proper to take a different view in these writ petitions by
considering the writ petition on merits, as nearly forty years have lapsed
from the date of appointment of the petitioners on various posts and more
than twenty to thirty years have lapsed from the date of fixation of the
higher pay-scale. The petitioners would be put to untold misery if the
matters are considered on merits in the circumstances of the case, more
so, when one of the writ petitions in the case of the retired employee is
allowed by this court, after considering the provisions of the Maharashtra
Civil Services (Pension) Rules that provide that the pension determined
by the concerned authorities and received by the retired employee, cannot
be varied to his disadvantage. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the case, it would not be proper to decide the writ petitions on merits,
more so, when the interim relief is operating in favour of the petitioners
for more than ten years and even before the writ petitions were filed, the
petitioners were receiving the salary in the higher pay-scale for nearly
twenty years.
6 Common Judgment
3. Hence, in the circumstances of the case and for the reasons
recorded in the judgment dated 03.05.2016 in Writ Petition No.1494 of
2005, we allow these writ petitions. The impugned orders are set aside.
It is needless to mention that we have taken this view in the peculiar
circumstances of the case.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as
to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
APTE
