Bombay High Court
State Of Maharashtra vs Shri Nandkishoranantrqo Gohane on 22 September, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
1 wp 3327.05 judg..odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
Writ Petition No.3327 of 2005
1] State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Department of Animal Husbandry
and Fisheries (ADF), Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2] The Dairy Development Commissioner,
Abdul Gaffar Khan Marg,
Administrative Building, Worli Sea Face,
Mumbai. .... Petitioners
Versus
1] Nandkishor Anantrao Gohane,
R/o.-Raje Raghuji nagar,
Qtr. No.2/19, Nagpur.
2] Sewakram Rabjam Chaware,
R/o.-27, Republican Nagar, P.N.A/C 35,
Jaripatka, Nagpur.
3] Ramesh Mahipatrao Wankhede,
R/o.-Wd.No.15, Jaitala, Nagpur.
4] Pradeep Laxmanrao Tupkar,
R/o.-Tulshibag Road, Nagpur.
5] Suresh Keshao Chourasia,
R/o.-C/o.-Madhusudan Chourasia,
260, Mohan Nagar, Nagpur.
::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2016 00:14:03 :::
2 wp 3327.05 judg..odt
6] Smt. Malati Prakash Kankar,
R/o.-Shriram Bhavan, G-60 Mount Road,
Sadar, Nagpur. .... Respondents
Ms Tajwar Khan, Assistant Government Pleader for
petitioners.
Shri B.M. Khan, Advocate for respondents.
Coram : Smt. Vasanti A Naik &
Kum. Indira Jain, JJ.
nd
Dated : 22
ig September, 2016
.
J U D G M E N T [Per Kum. Indira Jain, J.]
By this Writ Petition State of Maharashtra challenges
the order dated 11-10-2004 passed by the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur in Original Application
No.333 of 2003.
2] Facts giving rise to the petition may be stated in brief
as under :-
Respondents were working as Junior Clerks in the
department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries of the
State. On completion of 12 years service by the
3 wp 3327.05 judg..odt
respondents time bound promotion was granted to them in
the next promotional post of Time Keeper. According to
respondents the next promotional post for the post of
Junior Clerk was the Senior Clerk and the fixation of pay
scale on time bound promotion considering the post of
Time Keeper was improper and incorrect. They made
representations but they were not favourably considered.
It is the case of respondents that they were entitled to pay
scale of Rs.4000-6000 which was the pay scale of the next
promotional post of Senior Clerk.
3] Being aggrieved with the fixation of pay in the pay
scale of Time Keeper respondents filed Original
Application No.333 of 2003 before the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur.
4] Petitioners herein submitted their return and raised
manifold objections. The main contention of State of
4 wp 3327.05 judg..odt
Maharashtra before the Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal, Nagpur was that respondents were working as
daily rated workers and in view of the order of Industrial
Court, Nagpur they were absorbed in the post of Junior
Clerk-Clerk cum Typist.
5]
On completion of 12 years of service each of the
applicants in Original Application No.333 of 2003 was
given pay scale in the next promotional post of Time
Keeper. It was submitted that employees were governed
by Government Resolution dated 08-06-1995 and their
claims were considered on the dates between 2000 and
2002 when they completed 12 years of service. The
higher pay scale of Rs.3200-4900 was given to them. This
was the pay scale of Time Keeper at the relevant time. It
was submitted that the employees who were working as
Junior Clerks were not entitled to pay scale in view of time
bound promotion in the pay scale of Senior Clerk but they
5 wp 3327.05 judg..odt
were entitled to the pay scale which was applicable to the
Time Keeper.
6] On hearing the parties Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal, Nagpur observed that applicants were governed
by Government Resolution dated 08-06-1995 and the next
promotional post for Junior Clerk was that of Time Keeper.
It was also observed that under the impugned order dated
21-11-2002 applicants and other Junior Clerks were given
the pay scale of Time Keeper. However, referring to an
order dated 15-09-1999 in respect of Junior Clerk
Shri R.B. Kulmethe who was given the time bound
promotion and pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 with effect from
01-04-1998 tribunal came to the conclusion that there was
no material on record to show any exceptional
circumstance while giving Shri Kulmethe benefit of
Government Resolution dated 08-06-1995 and his case
was duly considered under the said Government
6 wp 3327.05 judg..odt
Resolution. Considering the time bound promotion pay
scale fixed in respect of Shri Kulmethe Tribunal held that
applicants were also entitled to the pay scale of
Rs.4000-6000 as per the Government Resolution dated
08-06-1995. It is this order which has been impugned by
the State of Maharashtra in the present Writ Petition.
7] We have heard Ms Tajwar Khan, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for petitioners and Shri B.M. Khan,
learned Counsel for respondents. Learned Assistant
Government Pleader submitted that the next promotion for
the Junior Clerk was of the Time Keeper and only in
respect of one of the Junior Clerks as pay scale was
incorrectly fixed as Rs.4000-6000 Tribunal allowed the
Original Application which is not in consonance with the
Government Resolution dated 08-06-1995. She refers to
another Government Resolution dated 26-02-1979 to
support her contention that for Junior Clerk next promotion
7 wp 3327.05 judg..odt
is of Time Keeper and not of Senior Clerk. Learned
Assistant Government Pleader further submits that it was
not proper on the part of Tribunal to consider fixation of
pay in case of Shri Kulmethe and allow the same pay
scale to the applicants particularly when it was not
permissible as per the Government Resolutions. She
therefore seeks intervention of this Court in Writ
jurisdiction.
8] Per contra Shri B.M. Khan, learned Counsel for
respondents strongly supports the order passed by the
Tribunal and submits that next promotion to the Junior
Clerk was of the Senior Clerk and so in case of
Shri Kulmethe pay scale was fixed as Rs.4000-6000 which
was the then pay scale of the post of Senior Clerk. The
learned Counsel strenuously submitted that the State
cannot treat its employees differently under the same
Government Resolution and in that sense impugned order
8 wp 3327.05 judg..odt
dated 21-11-2002 was illegal and bad in law. It is
submitted that no interference is called in the impugned
order and the learned Counsel seeks dismissal of the Writ
Petition.
9] With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the
parties we have gone through the judgment and order
dated 11-10-2004 passed by the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur in Original Application
No.333 of 2003 and the relevant Government Resolutions.
From the Government Resolution dated 08-06-1995 it can
be seen that on completion of 12 years regular service
employees are entitled to time bound promotion in the pay
scale applicable to the next promotional post.
10] Further from the Government Resolution dated
26-02-1979 it is crystal clear that the post of Junior Clerk
falls in Cadre-V and the promotional post for the post of
9 wp 3327.05 judg..odt
Junior Clerk is in Cadre-IV as Time Keeper. It is not in
dispute that Government Resolution dated 26-02-1979
regarding amalgamation of Accounts Group with
Administration Group in the Dairy Development
Department was holding the field at the time when the
time bound promotions of the respondents came to be
considered by the department.
11] So far as fixation of time bound promotion pay in
respect of Shri Kulmethe is concerned State has referred
the order dated 09-04-1999 wherein condition of letter
dated 30-08-1995 was deleted. On 15-09-1999
corrigendum was issued and the pay scale of
Shri Kulmethe was brought down to Rs.3050-4590 and
thereafter he was placed in the pay scale of
Rs.4000-6000. According to the State Shri Kulmethe was
governed by the previous Government Resolution and
accordingly his pay was fixed on time bound promotion
10 wp 3327.05 judg..odt
whereas time bound promotion to respondents was given
as Time Keeper in view of the subsequent Government
Resolution applicable to them.
12] In our view Tribunal was not justified in taking up the
case of Shri Kulmethe and making it applicable to the
respondents without any substantial material and
Government Resolution on record. Needless to State that
in order to pass the test of permissible/reasonable
classification two conditions must be fulfilled-
(i) that the classification must be founded on
an intelligible differentia which distinguishes
persons grouped together from others who are
left out of the group, and
(ii) that that differentia must have a rational
relation to the object sought to be achieved by
the impugned Government Resolution. What is
necessary is that there must be a nexus
11 wp 3327.05 judg..odt
between the basis of classification and the object
of the Resolution.
13] We do not want to go into the controversy raised by
the respondents in respect of the pay scale given to
Shri Kulmethe as he is not a party to this petition and the
State has explained facts and circumstances in which time
bound promotion pay scale was given to him to which there
is no denial from the side of respondents.
14] In the aforesaid view of the matter we find that
impugned judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur is not based on the proper
appreciation of the Government Resolutions then
prevailing in respect of time bound promotion and fixation
of pay scale thereon. The impugned order therefore calls
for interference. Hence the following order :-
12 wp 3327.05 judg..odt
(a) Writ Petition is allowed.
(b) Impugned judgment and order dated
11-10-2004 passed by the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur in
Original Application No.333 of 2003 is
set aside.
(c)
Original Application No.333 of 2003
stands dismissed.
(d) No order as to costs.
JUDGE JUD
GE
Deshmukh
13 wp 3327.05 judg..odt
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 : Uploaded on :
(Deshmukh) 27/09/2016
P.A. to the Hon'ble Judge.
