Gajanan S/O Marotrao Wankhede vs The State Of Mah. Thr. The ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 141 Bom

                                                        1                        wp6630.05.odt

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

                           WRIT PETITION NO.6630/2005

        Gajanan s/o Marotrao Wankhede,
        Aged about 60 years, Occ. Retired,
        r/o Gokul Ward, Chandrapur.                               ...PETITIONER

                          VERSUS
 1.       The State of Maharashtra through
          the Secretary, Ministry of Urban
          Development, Mantralaya,
          Fort, Bombay-400 032.

 2.       The Director of Municipal Administration,
          New Administrative Building,
          15th Floor, Opp. Mantralaya,
          Bombay-400 032.

 3.       The Regional Director,
          Municipal Administration,
          Nagpur Division, Nagpur.

 4.       The Collector, 
          Chandrapur.

 5.       The Municipal Corporation,
          Chandrapur, thr. its Commissioner.         ...RESPONDENTS
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shri Rohit Joshi, Advocate for petitioner.
 Shri Ambarish Joshi, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 4.
 Shri M. I. Dhatrak, Advocate for respondent no.5.
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   CORAM:-      SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND
                                                  V. M. DESHPANDE, JJ.

DATED :- FEBRUARY 28, 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : Smt. Vasanti A Naik, J.)

By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order

of the Deputy Director of Municipal Administration, dated

2 wp6630.05.odt

07.04.2005 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of pay-

scale of Rs.500-900 as per the recommendations of the 3 rd Pay

Commission, Rs.1640-2900 as per the recommendations of the 4 th

Pay Commission and Rs.5500-9000 as per the recommendations of

the 5th Pay Commission.

The petitioner was appointed as a clerk in the

municipal council, Chandrapur vide order, dated 31.03.1971. It is

the case of the petitioner that in the year 1985, the petitioner was

appointed as a District Librarian by the order, dated 01.04.1985.

The petitioner was working on the post of Librarian in the pay-

scale of Rs.365-760. According to the petitioner, since the

petitioner was working as a District Librarian, he was entitled to a

pay-scale of Rs.500-900 as per the recommendations of the 3 rd Pay

Commission. The petitioner made an application to the

respondents to grant the said pay-scale to the petitioner. The

Standing Committee of the Municipal Council resolved on

07.03.1992 that the pay-scale of Rs.500-900 could be given to the

petitioner subject to the approval of the Director of the Municipal

Administration. The Director of Municipal Administration, by the

impugned order, rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of

pay-scale of Rs.500-900 as per the recommendations of the 3 rd Pay

3 wp6630.05.odt

Commission. Since the pay-scales were revised as per the

recommendations of the 4th and 5th Pay Commission, the petitioner

sought for the pay-scale of Rs.1640-2900 and Rs.5500-9000

respectively. The order of the Deputy Director of Municipal

Administration is challenged by the petitioner in the instant

petition and the petitioner had sought a direction against the

respondents to grant higher pay-scale to the petitioner.

Shri Joshi, the learned Assistant Government Pleader

appearing for the respondent nos.1 to 4 and Shri Dhatrak, the

learned counsel for the respondent no.5, have opposed the prayer

made by the petitioner in the instant petition. It is submitted that

the petitioner was never promoted on the post of District Librarian

and was promoted only as a Librarian. The appointment order of

the petitioner is referred to by the learned counsel for the

respondents in support of their case. It is stated that the pay-scale

of Rs.365-760 is recommended for the post of Librarian as per the

recommendations of the 3rd Pay Commission and the municipal

council has granted the said pay-scale to the petitioner. It appears

that the initial appointment of the petitioner was on the post of

clerk and he was promoted only on the post of Librarian on

01.04.1985 and not on the post of District Librarian.

4 wp6630.05.odt

There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner

was promoted as District Librarian and in fact there is nothing on

record to show that there is indeed a post of District Librarian that

is different from the post of Librarian. The pay scales of Librarians

or District Librarians working in the Municipal Council are not

placed on record. There is nothing to show that as per the

recommendations of the III Pay Commission, it would be necessary

to grant the pay scale of Rs.500-900 to a Librarian. The Deputy

Director of Municipal Administration therefore rightly held that

there was no right in the petitioner to seek the pay scale of Rs.500-

900 as per the recommendations of the III rd Pay Commission and

Rs.1640-2900 as per the recommendations of the IV th Pay

Commission and similar higher pay scale as per the

recommendations of the Vth Pay Commission. Since, the petitioner

has failed to prove that the petitioner was promoted as District

Librarian and has further failed to prove that the pay scale of

Librarian is Rs.500-900 as per the recommendations of the IIIrd Pay

Commission in the Municipal Council, no fault could be found

with the order of the Deputy Director of Municipal Administration.

The Deputy Director of Municipal Administration has rightly held

that the pay scale of the employees of the Municipal Council

5 wp6630.05.odt

cannot be higher than the pay scales of the Government servants

working on similar posts. Merely because in Municipal Council,

Latur, higher pay scale is given to one of the Librarians, the

petitioner cannot seek similar pay scale specially when the

petitioner has not proved that he has a right to claim higher pay

scale.

Since, no case is made out for interference with the

impugned order, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to

costs.

(V. M. Deshpande, J.) (Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J.)

kahale