Bombay High Court
Akhil Marathwada Zilla Parishad ... vs State Of Mah & Ors on 1 September, 2016
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala
1 wp 1655.05
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1655 OF 2005
Akhil Marathwada Zilla Parishad
Kamgar Union, Branch Office at
Trade Union Center, Parbhani
Through its Joint Secretary
Uddhav Namdeo Shinde .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Principal Secretary
Rural Development and Water
Conversation Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.
2. Executive Engineer,
Works Division, Zilla Parishad,
Parbhani.
3. Deputy Engineer,
Zilla Parishad Works
Sub Division, Gangakhed,
District Parbhani. .. Respondents
Shri Shivaji T. Shelke, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mrs. M. A. Deshpande, Addl.G.P. for the Respondent No. 1.
Shri S. G. Shinde, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND
K. L. WADANE, JJ.
DATE : 01ST SEPTEMBER, 2016.
2 wp 1655.05
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S. V. Gangapurwala, J.) :-
. Mr. Shelke, the learned counsel for the petitioner states
that, the members of the petitioner union were working on daily
wages and were brought on C.R.T. as per the Kalelkar award.
The employees who have put in five years continuous service on
work charge establishment or on daily wages before 1986 and are
thereafter brought on C.R.T. with retrospective effect. The
benefit is given to the members of the petitioner union with
retrospective effect including difference of salary. On 17.06.2004
the respondent No. 2 issued an order directing the respondent
No. 3 and other subordinate officers to pay the difference of
bonus in cash to the employees for the period from 01.04.1991 to
31.03.1999. Thereafter on 25.01.2005 the respondent No. 1
issued an order directing the respondent No. 3 to recover the
amount of bonus difference which was paid as per letter dated
17.06.2004. The learned counsel submits that, when the salary
difference was made admissible to the members of the petitioner
union, the members of the petitioner union are also entitled for
the bonus amount. The members of the petitioner union are
Class IV employees. They are drawing meager salary and the
recovery order would cause hardship to them. Many of the
members of the petitioner union now would stand
superannuated.
2. We have heard the learned Additional Government Pleader
3 wp 1655.05
for the respondent No. 1 and the learned counsel for respondent
Nos. 2 and 3.
3. We need not enter into the debate about the legality of the
order on merits. All the members of the petitioner union are
working on Class IV post. The difference of bonus amount was
given to them after they were brought on C.R.T. This Court vide
order dated 11.04.2005 had granted interim relief in terms of
prayer clause 'C' thereby granting stay to the implementation of
the order dated 25.01.2005, by virtue of which recovery was
claimed.
4. It is fact that, the members of the petitioner union were
working as Class IV employees. Many of the members of the
petitioner union now have retired on attaining age of
superannuation. Certainly, if recovery is claimed, much hardship
would be caused to them. Considering the judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs.
Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in (2015) 4 SCC
334, it would be improper for the respondents to claim recovery.
5. In the light of the above, the writ petition is allowed. Rule
is made absolute in terms of prayer clause "B". No costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
[ K. L. WADANE, J. ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]
bsb/Sept. 16
