Bombay High Court
Gous Mohiyoddin Moinoddin Nanded vs Municipal Commissioner & Ors on 21 June, 2017
Bench: T.V. Nalawade
1 WP-3294-05
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.3294 OF 2005
Gous Mohiyoddin s/o. Moinoddin,
Age : 60 years, Occ. Pensioner,
resident of House No.5-2-58,
Fatte Burruj, Nanded
Dist. Nanded ..Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Municipal Commissioner,
Nanded-Waghala Municipal
Corporation, Nanded
2. The State of Maharashtra,
through Urban Development
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai
3. The Principal Secretary,
Urban Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032 ..Respondents
--
Mr.G.R.Syed, Advocate for petitioner
Mr.S.V.Kurundkar, Advocate for respondent no.1
Mrs.V.N.Patil-Jadhav, AGP for respondent nos.2 and 3
--
CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : JUNE 21, 2017
::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 07:28:15 :::
2 WP-3294-05
JUDGMENT (PER SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.) :
Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner joined the service of
respondent no.1 - Municipal Council as a Jawan on
08.02.1964. He was promoted as Bill Collector on
01.04.1969. One Jagjitsingh was given promotion as
the Tax Inspector on 08.02.1980, even though he was
junior to the petitioner in the feeder-cadre.
Thereafter also, promotions were given to some more
employees who were juniors to the petitioner.
Therefore, the petitioner made representations to
respondent no.1 from time to time, for getting
deemed date of promotion and arrears of pay and
allowances. However, his claim was not considered.
He then made representations to respondent nos.2 and
3 for getting the said relief. It was ultimately
directed by respondent nos.2 and 3, to respondent
no.1 to extend the deemed date of promotion to the
petitioner from 08.02.1980. However, he was denied
the arrears of pay and allowances on getting revised
3 WP-3294-05
pay scale on the basis of his deemed promotion. He,
therefore, filed the present Writ Petition.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner
pointed out to the Circular dated 11.06.1993 issued
by the General Administration Department, Government
of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai, wherein it is
mentioned that in case a junior employee is promoted
wrongly by superseding a senior eligible employee,
such senior employee should be given deemed date of
promotion with arrears of pay and allowances in view
of the Circular dated 25.02.1965. He submits that
in view of this Circular, the petitioner was
entitled to get arrears of pay and allowances
consequent upon getting the deemed date of
promotion.
4. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for
respondent no.1 submits that the Circular dated
25.02.1965 has been superseded by the Circular dated
11.06.1993 and accordingly, the petitioner is not
entitled to get the arrears of pay and allowances
4 WP-3294-05
consequent upon his getting deemed date of
promotion.
5. We have perused the Circular dated
11.06.1993. There is specific reference of Circular
dated 25.02.1965, whereunder the arrears of pay and
allowances are liable to be paid to a senior
employee who has been wrongly superseded by his
junior employee in the matter of promotion. The
Circular dated 11.06.1993 nowhere states that the
Circular dated 25.02.1965 has been superseded. The
Circular dated 11.06.1993 simply states that the
matters in respect of extending deemed date of
promotion should not be considered and decided at
the level of the departments of Mantralaya and that
they should be referred to the General
Administration Department and Finance Department for
sanction and after getting sanction from these
departments only, the orders should be issued.
There is absolutely no mention in the Circular dated
11.06.1993 that a senior employee who has been
5 WP-3294-05
superseded by his junior in the matter of promotion
and who has been given deemed date of promotion is
not entitled to get arrears of pay and allowances
pursuant to his getting deemed date of promotion.
When the petitioner was wrongly superseded by his
junior employee, when he was given deemed date of
promotion with effect from 08.02.1980 and when his
pay was fixed accordingly as per the pay scale
applicable from time to time, as mentioned in the
order dated 10.05.2002 passed by respondent no.1,
there was no legal impediment in the way of the
petitioner in getting the arrears of pay and
allowances on the basis of the pay fixed as per the
said order dated 10.05.2002.
6. In the above circumstances, the Writ
petition is liable to be allowed. The petitioner is
entitled to get the arrears of pay and allowances as
admissible to him because of the pay fixation as per
the order dated 10.05.2002 passed by respondent
no.1.
6 WP-3294-05
7. In the result, we pass the following
order :-
(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) Respondent no.1 shall pay the arrears of
pay and allowances to the petitioner as fixed in the
order dated 10.05.2002, within a period of four
months from today.
(iii) Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
(iv) No costs.
[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.] [T.V. NALAWADE, J.]
kbp
