Shriniwas S/O Paurshuramji ... vs The Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur, ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 2785 Bom

WP  3053/11                                          1                             Judgment

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                  NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
                       WRIT PETITION No. 3053/2011

Sriniwas s/o Paurshuramji Meshram,
aged 65 years, occupation retired,
resident of Gautam Chowk, Sindewahi,
District Chandrapur.                                                          PETITIONER

                                    .....VERSUS.....

1.    The Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur,
      through its Chief Executive Officer.

2.    The State of Maharashtra,
      through Secretary,
      Department of Rural Development
      and Water Conservation, 
      Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.                                            RESPONDENTS


                        Shri P.D. Meghe, counsel for the petitioner.
                   Shri M.M. Sudame, counsel for the respondent no.1.
        Shri I.J. Damle, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent no.2.


                                     CORAM :SMT.VASANTI  A  NAIK AND
                                                   A.D. UPADHYE, JJ.                  

                                                             6                  JUNE,     2017.
                                      DATE        :            TH




ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT.VASANTI  A  NAIK, J.)

By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the

respondent no.1-Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur, dated 30.10.2010 as far as it

denies the benefit of the higher pay-scale to the petitioner from

01.10.1994 to 01.10.1995. The petitioner has also sought a direction

against the respondents to pay the arrears of difference of salary to the

petitioner on the basis of the government resolution.

WP 3053/11 2 Judgment

2. The petitioner was appointed as a Muster Clerk by the

respondent-Zilla Parishad in the year 1963. After completing more than

thirty years of service, the petitioner retired on attaining the age of

superannuation in the year 2003. As per the policy decision of the State

Government, dated 20.05.1999, a cadre of Civil Engineering Assistant

was created and 76 posts in the said cadre were allotted to Zilla Parishad,

Chandrapur. Since the petitioner was considered as a Civil Engineering

Assistant due to the merger of the cadre as per the Government

Resolution dated 20.05.1999, according to the petitioner, he was entitled

to the pay-scale of a Junior Engineer. Basing his claim on the said

Government Resolution, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.1434 of

2009 seeking similar benefits, as were granted to his juniors. According

to the petitioner, since his juniors were granted higher pay-scale from

01.10.1994, the petitioner was also entitled to the same. This Court

partly allowed the writ petition by the judgment dated 27.01.2010 and

directed the Zilla Parishad to grant the benefit of higher pay-scale to the

petitioner from the date on which similar benefit was granted to his

juniors. In pursuance of the directions of this Court in Writ Petition

No.1434 of 2009, the respondent-Zilla Parishad granted the benefit of

higher pay-scale to the petitioner with effect from 01.10.1995. According

to the petitioner, the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of higher pay-

scale with effect from 01.10.1994 and the action on the part of the Zilla

Parishad of granting benefit to the petitioner from 01.10.1995 is bad in

WP 3053/11 3 Judgment

law inasmuch as his juniors were granted the benefit with effect from

01.10.1994. So also, the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order of

the Zilla Parishad informing the petitioner that the petitioner would not

be entitled to actual monetary benefits of higher pay-scale with effect

from 01.10.1995 and would be entitled to the same after the impugned

order was passed in October-2010. Since the petitioner is not satisfied

with the grant of notional benefits, the petitioner has filed this petition

seeking actual monetary benefits with effect from 01.10.1994.

3. Shri Meghe, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has

referred to the order of the Zilla Parishad dated 12.02.2008 at

Annexure-2 to canvas that the Muster Clerks, that were appointed

subsequent to the appointment of the petitioner and were junior to the

petitioner, were granted the benefit of higher pay-scale with effect from

01.10.1994. It is stated by referring to the chart incorporated in

Annexure-2 that the Muster Clerks who were appointed from the year

1971 onwards were granted the benefit of higher pay-scale from

01.10.1994 while granting the benefit to the petitioner with effect from

01.10.1995 though the petitioner was appointed in the year 1963. It is

submitted that there is no propriety in the action on the part of the State

Government and the Zilla Parishad to deny actual monetary benefits

flowing from the order of grant of higher pay-scale when the State

Government and the Zilla Parishad has permitted the grant of higher pay-

WP 3053/11 4 Judgment

scale to the Junior Muster Clerks with effect from 01.10.1994 only. It is

submitted that the action on the part of the State Government and the

respondent-Zilla Parishad is arbitrary and discriminatory.

4. Shri Damle, the learned Assistant Government Pleader

appearing for the State Government, has supported the action of the State

Government. It is, however fairly stated that it could be seen from

Annexure-2 as also the earlier judgment of this Court in the case of the

petitioner that similar benefits as are granted to the junior employees are

liable to be granted to the petitioner also.

5. Shri Sudame, the learned counsel for the Zilla Parishad, has

defended the action of the Zilla Parishad. It is submitted that the decision

to grant only notional benefits to the petitioner is based on the

Government decision, dated 29.09.2008. It is submitted that an

appropriate order may be passed in the circumstances of the case.

6. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a

perusal of the documents annexed to the petition, specially the order

dated 12.02.2008 on which great reliance has been placed by the learned

counsel for the petitioner, it appears that neither the State Government

nor the Zilla Parishad would be entitled to discriminate between similarly

situated employees. By the order of the Zilla Parishad dated 12.02.2008,

WP 3053/11 5 Judgment

several Muster Clerks that were junior to the petitioner were granted the

benefit of the higher pay-scale with effect from 01.10.1994. The order of

the Zilla Parishad dated 12.02.2008 makes it clear that the employees

mentioned in the said order, who were junior to the petitioner, were

granted the actual monetary benefits from 01.10.1994. The order dated

12.02.2008 clearly shows that the Muster Clerks, that were appointed

after the petitioner, were granted the benefit of the higher pay-scale with

effect from 01.10.1994. If that is so, we do not find any propriety in the

action on the part of the Zilla Parishad in granting the benefit of higher

pay-scale to the petitioner with effect from 01.10.1995 when this Court

has, by the judgment dated 27.01.2010 in Writ Petition No.1434 of 2009,

directed the Zilla Parishad to grant similar benefit to the petitioner as was

granted to the other Muster Clerks who were junior to him. It appears

from the order of the Zilla Parishad dated 12.02.2008 that several

employees that were junior to the petitioner were granted benefit of

higher pay-scale with effect from 01.10.1994. The petitioner would also

be entitled to the benefit of the higher pay-scale from the said date and

non-grant of the benefit to the petitioner from the said date would be

violative of the directions issued by this Court in the judgment in the case

of the petitioner himself. We also do not find any propriety in the action

on the part of the State Government in asking the Zilla Parishad to grant

actual monetary benefits flowing from the order granting higher pay-scale

to the petitioner from the date of the impugned order that was passed in

WP 3053/11 6 Judgment

October-2010. When similarly situated employees were granted actual

monetary benefits in terms of the order dated 12.02.2008 with effect

from 01.10.1994, the respondents cannot be heard to say that similar

benefits would not be extended to the petitioner. In the circumstances of

the case, it would be necessary to direct the respondents to grant actual

monetary benefit of higher pay-scale to the petitioner with effect from

01.10.1994.

7. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly

allowed. The impugned order is modified. The respondents are directed

to grant the higher pay-scale and actual monetary benefits to the

petitioner with effect from 01.10.1994. The actual monetary benefits

should be released in favour of the petitioner within three months.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as

to costs.

              JUDGE                                          JUDGE

APTE