Bombay High Court
Smt. Surekha Rajeev Darwhekar And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ... on 22 December, 2017
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
1 wp2076.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.2076 OF 2017
1. Smt. Surekha Rajeev Darwhekar,
Aged 60 years, Occ. Retired, r/o.
'Mangala' Plot No.25, Deendayal
Nagar, Nagpur-22.
2. Smt. Sumitra Bhimrao Ganar,
Aged 61 years, Occ. Retired, r/o.
MIG 42, Ridge Road Housing Board
Colony, Vishwakarma Nagar,
Nagpur.
3. Smt. Pushpa Murlidhar Wankhede,
Aged 60 years, Occ. Retired, r/o.
19, Gurukrupa Layout,
Bhagwan Nagar, Nagpur
4. Smt. Malati Mahadeo Tayade,
Aged about 59 years, Occ.Retired,
r/o. Nalanda Sahaniwas,
Banerjee Layout, Bhagwan Nagar
Road, Nagpur-27.
::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 02:41:24 :::
2 wp2076.17.odt
5. Smt. Meena John Nehmaye,
Aged about 57 years, Occ.Service,
r/o. Shriram Wadi, Plot No.51-52,
Ayodhya Nagar, Nagpur-24.
6. Smt. Manda Yadao Zodape,
Aged about 59 years, Occ. Retired,
r/o.58, MIG Hsg. Board Qtr. No.3/5,
Vaishali Nagar, Nagpur-17.
7. Smt. Kumud Chandrashekhar Bhave,
Aged about 56 years, Occ. Service,
r/o.202, Ganga Residency, Besa Road,
Manewada, Nagpur-34.
8. Smt. Vidya Vijay Panchabhai
Aged about 59 years, Occ. Retired,
r/o. Shrinath Saingar, Manewada,
Nagpur.
9. Smt. Panchasheela Vitthal Khobragade,
Aged about 59 years, Occ. Retired,
r/o.Plot No.82, Banerjee Layout,
Bhagwan Nagar, Nagpur-27.
10.Smt. Meri Peeter Leo,
Aged about 61 years, Occ. Retired,
r/o.203, Mularidhar Apartment,
Wanjari Nagar, Nagpur-09.
11.Smt. Shakuntala P. Athawale,
Aged about 62 years, Occ. Retired,
r/o.Q.No.102, Fancard, Estate,
RMS Colony, Anant Nagar,
Nagpur.
12.Smt. Sulekha Mukund Joshi,
Aged about 59 years, Occ.Retired,
r/o.CNE 002, Shat Tarka Apartment,
Surendra Nagar, Nagpur-15.
::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 02:41:24 :::
3 wp2076.17.odt
13.Smt. Pramila Laxman Shahane
Aged about 59 years, Occ.Retired,
r/o.A 301, Yoglaxmi Complex,
Modi No.1, Sitabuldi,
Nagpur-12.
14.Smt. Sulochana Narayan Wadatkar
Aged about 62 years, Occ.Retired,
r/o. Chandika Nagar 2, Plot No.110,
Manewada, Besa Road,
Nagpur-27.
15.Smt. Tara Rambhau Bhawalkar,
Aged about 58 years, Occ. Retired,
r/o.99, Shirdi Nagar, Manewada
Road, Nagpur.
16.Meena Ambadas Nemade,
Aged about 57 years, Occ. Service,
r/o.MIG 11/2, Winkar Colony,
Manewada, Nagpur.
17.Smt. Alka Pramod Wankhede
Aged about 57 years, Occ. Service,
r/o.Ratan Nagar, Plot No.60,
Gadge Baba Layout,
Hanuman Nagar, Nagpur-09.
18.Smt.Usha Vidyasagar Tagde,
Aged about 59 years, Occ.Retired,
r/o. Shivraj Nagar No.1, Road No.5,
Plot No.5, Vishwakarma Nagar,
Nagpur-27.
19.Smt. Sudha Ram Khandade,
Aged about 59 years, Occ.Retired,
r/o.New Nandanwan, Plot No.675,
Nagpur.
::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 02:41:24 :::
4 wp2076.17.odt
20.Smt. Vijaya Sudhir Killedar,
Aged about 59 years, Occ.Retired,
Plot No.78, Wathoda Layout,
Adiwasi Society, Nagpur-09.
21.Smt. Kala Kishor Thaware
Aged about 60 years, Occ.Retired,
r/o. Plot No.196, Gali No.3,
Jawahar Nagar, Manewada Road,
Nagpur.
22.Smt. Shobha Pundalik Mendhekar
Aged about 60 years, Occ. Retired,
r/o.41, Ramjivan Choudhar
Apartment, Kirda Chowk,
Hanumannagar, Nagpur-24.
23.Smt. Yashodhara Dinkarrao Moon,
Aged about 60 years, Occ.Retired,
r/o. Plot No.8, Galli No.28,
Chandramani Nagar,
Nagpur-27.
24.Suman Jivan Indurkar
Aged about 58 years, Occ.Retired,
r/o. Plot No.50, Awale Nagar,
Nari Road, Teka Naka,
Nagpur-27. ..... PETITIONERS
// Versus //
1.The State Of Maharashtra,
through the Secretary,
Department of Medical Education
and Research, Mantralaya,
Mumbai 400 032.
::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 02:41:24 :::
5 wp2076.17.odt
2.The Director,
Directorate of Medical Education
& Research, Arogya Bhavan, St.
George's Hospital Compound,
Near CST Station, Mumbai.
3.The Dean,
Government Medical College &
Hospital, Nagpur. ...... RESPONDENTS
____________________________________________________________
Mr.P.D.Meghe, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr.S.S.Doifode, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
____________________________________________________________
***********
Date of reserving the Judgment : .12.2017.
Date of pronouncing the Judgment : 22.12.2017.
***********
CORAM : R.K.DESHPANDE
AND
M.G.GIRATKAR, JJ.
JUDGMENT (Per M.G.Giratkar, J) :
1. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the
consent of learned Counsel for the respective parties.
2. All the petitioners have prayed to quash and set aside the
Judgment and Order dt.7.11.2016 passed by Member (J),
6 wp2076.17.odt
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, Bench at Nagpur in
O.A. No.132 of 2016. They have also prayed to allow O.A. No.132 of
2016 in its entirety and direct the respondents to grant promotional
pay scale to the petitioners on completion of 24 years as per
Government Resolution dt.1.4.2010 and accordingly make the pay
fixation of the petitioners and release the arrears on account of
difference of salary and also revise the retiral benefits and pension
accordingly.
3. It is submitted that the petitioners have retired as staff
Nurse from the service of respondent no.3 except petitioner no.7,
who is going to retire on 31.10.2017. The petitioners, after having
passed their Nursing Course, were appointed as Staff Nurse under
respondent no.3. Petitioners have rendered unblemished satisfactory
service and at no point of time, they were served with any adverse
communication during entire span of their service.
4. It is submitted that, on 8.6.1995, the Government of
Maharashtra adopted a policy giving benefits to their employees who
have not received promotion after a period of twelve years.
Petitioners received the benefit of promotional pay scale in the year
7 wp2076.17.odt
1995, which is w.e.f. 1.10.1994 given to those who have completed
service of 12 years.
5. It is submitted that, in the year 2007-08, promotional
posts became available. Hence, the respondents issued order of
promotion to the petitioners. However, those postings were not
suitable. Therefore, the petitioners requested for promotional posting
on their original place of posting. Subsequently, their request was
considered by the Authority and the petitioners were posted to their
choice posting on promotional post. The respondent/Authority
denied second time bound promotion to the petitioners on the
ground that they refused promotion. But, in fact, the petitioners did
not refuse promotion. They requested for choice posting due to some
family difficulties. Their request was later on considered. Therefore,
it cannot be said that the petitioners refused promotional postings.
6. It is submitted that the similarly situated employees who
were transferred but who had not joined on the promotional post at
transferred place were again given their choice posting. All those
were given benefit of second time bound pay scale.
8 wp2076.17.odt
7. All the petitioners requested respondent/Authority to
grant second time bound promotional pay scale after completion of
24 years as per Government Resolution dt.1.4.2010. But, the
respondent/Authority has wrongly rejected their claim. It is
submitted that granting second time bound promotional pay scale as
per order dt.18.12.2015 of the similarly situated employees like the
petitioners, who approached the Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal, Bench at Mumbai in O.A. No.569 of 2014, is allowed. The
case of petitioners is similar to the case in O.A. No.569 of 2014,
decided by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Bench at
Mumbai. However. O.A. No.132 of 2016 filed by the petitioners
before the MAT, Bench at Nagpur, wrongly rejected vide Judgment
and Order dt.7.11.2016. Therefore, the petitioners have prayed to
grant second time bound promotional pay scale as per Government
Resolution No.1.4.2010.
8. Submission of respondent/Authority is that the
petitioners refused their promotional posting and therefore, they are
not entitled for second time bound promotional pay scale as per
Government Resolution dt.1.4.2010.
9 wp2076.17.odt
9. Heard Mr.P.D.Meghe, learned Counsel for the
petitioners. He has pointed out material documents. Learned
Counsel has pointed out the Judgment and Order in O.A. No.569 of
2014, decided by MAT, Bench at Mumbai. Learned Counsel has
submitted that there is no dispute that all the petitioners had
completed 24 years of their respective services on their original post
before the date of promotional posting. Hence, they are entitled for
the second time bound promotional pay scale as per Government
Resolution dt.1.4.2010. At last, it is prayed to allow the petition and
to direct the respondent/Authority, as prayed for.
10. Heard Mr.S.S.Doifode, learned A.P.P. for Respondents.
He has submitted that all the petitioners were promoted, but they
refused to join their respective postings. Therefore, they are not
entitled for second time bound promotional pay scale as per
Government Resolution dt.1.4.2010.
11. There is no dispute that all the petitioners have
completed 24 years of their respective services on their original post.
There is no dispute that they were granted first time bound
promotional pay scale. There is no dispute that they are entitled for
10 wp2076.17.odt
second time bound promotional pay scale as per Government
Resolution dt.1.4.2010. It is the defence of respondent/Authority
that the petitioners were promoted and transfer order was issued.
The petitioners have not joined their respective transferred postings
and therefore, they are not entitled for second time bound promotion
as per condition in Government Resolution dt.1.4.2010.
12. There is no dispute that all the petitioners were
promoted and they were transferred from their original place of
posting. There is no dispute that the petitioners did not join their
tranferred posting. All they had requested to give promotional
posting at their respective place of choice. All the petitioners
submitted their difficulties to join their new posting of the
promotional post. There is no dispute that, later on, the
respondent/Authority considered the difficulties of petitioner and
granted them promotional posting of their choice.
13. Once the difficulties of the petitioners are considered
and they are given their choice posting, this itself shows that the
respondent/Authority has not considered that the petitioners refused
their transferred posting. In such circumstances, the
11 wp2076.17.odt
respondent/Authority cannot say that the petitioners refused to join
their promotional post and therefore, they are not entitled for second
time bound promotional pay scale.
14. Learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that some
of the employees similarly situated as like the petitioners namely one
Smt.Autkar was also transferred on promotional post. She was again
given posting of her choice. The said employee was given benefit of
second time bound promotional pay scale as per Government
Resolution dt.1.4.2010.
15. The facts in the present petition and the facts in the case
before the MAT, Bench at Mumbai in O.A. No.569 of 2014 are near
about the same. The MAT, Bench at Mumbai has given directions to
the respondent/Authority to grant second time bound promotional
pay scale to the petitioners after completion of 24 years of their
respective service.
16. There is no dispute that all the petitioners have
completed continuous 24 years of service on their original post
before joining on the promotional post. Therefore, they are entitled
12 wp2076.17.odt
for second time bound promotional pay scale as per Government
Resolution dt.1.4.2010. Learned Member (J), Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Nagpur has not considered the
case of petitioners properly and has wrongly rejected O.A. No.132 of
2016. In view of above discussion, we are inclined to allow the
petition. Hence, we pass the following order.
// ORDER //
i) The petition is allowed.
ii) We quash and set aside the Judgment and
Order dt.7.11.2016 passed by Member (J), Maharashtra
Administrative Tribinal, Mumbai, Bench at Nagpur in
O.A. No.132 of 2016.
iii) We allow O.A. No.132 of 2016 in its entirety
and direct the respondents/Authorities to grant
promotional pay scale to the petitioners on completion of
24 years of service as per Government Resolution
dt.1.4.2010.
iv) The respondents/Authorities are directed to
make fixation of all the petitioners within a period of
13 wp2076.17.odt
two months and release the arrears on account of
difference of salary and also revise the retiral benefits
and pension of petitioners accordingly.
No order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
[jaiswal]
14 wp2076.17.odt
