Vishwas Krishna Palimkar And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 3545 Bom

                                      1       WP 2111 of 2006

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                        Writ Petition No. 2111 of 2006

     1)      Vishwas s/o Krishna Palimkar,
             Age 38 years,
             Occupation : Service as Technical
             Officer in the Office of Divisional
             Joint Director of Agriculture,
             Aurangabad,
             R/o 85, Samarth Nagar, Aurangabad.

     2)      Baban s/o Bhaorao Dhalgade,
             Age 41 years,
             Occupation: Service as Taluka
             Agriculture Officer, Badnapur,
             C/o The Office of Taluka
             Agriculture Officer, Badnapur,
             District Jalna.

     3)      Vishnu s/o Narayanrao Kokate,
             Age 38 years,
             Occupation: As above at
             Khultabad, C/o The Office of
             Taluka Agriculture Officer,
             Khultabad, Dist. Aurangabad.

     4)      Ankush s/o Dashrath Barde,
             Age 37 years,
             Occupation Service as
             Taluka Agriculture Officer,
             Ambad, C/o The Office of Taluka
             Agriculture Officer, Ambad,
             District Jalna.                        ..    Petitioners.

                      Versus

     1)      The State of Maharashtra.

     2)      The Secretary,
             Department of Agriculture
             M.S., Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.




::: Uploaded on - 04/07/2017               ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 07:36:05 :::
                                        2           WP 2111 of 2006

     3)      The Secretary,
             Department of Finance,
             MS, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. .. Respondents.

                                       ----

     Shri. R.S. Deshmukh, Advocate, for petitioners.

     Smt. S.S. Raut, Assistant Government Pleader, for
     respondents.

                                       ----

                                Coram:     T.V. NALAWADE &
                                           SANGITRAO S PATIL, JJ.

Date: 22 June 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per T.V. Nalawade, J.)

1) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Seen

the record produced by him. It is the grievance of the

petitioners that the cadre of Agriculture Officer/Circle

Agriculture Officer is from Non Gazetted Class II but the

cadre of the petitioners - Taluka Agriculture Officer is

Gazetted Officer Class II and as per recruitment rules, the

cadre of the petitioners was treated as higher and

promotional cadre. He submitted that in the past, the

petitioners were getting higher pay scale as per the

Fourth Pay Commission report viz. Rs.2000-3500 and the

cadre of Agriculture Officer was getting Rs.1640-2900.

3 WP 2111 of 2006

After Fifth Pay Commission report the pay scale of

Rs.6500-10500 came go be given to both the cadres and

the persons who are of lower cadre are getting the scale

equal to the petitioners and that is not consistent with the

recruitment rules. Learned counsel for the petitioners

submitted that this aspect needs to be considered by the

Government.

2) After the Fifth Pay Commission Report, there

was Sixth Pay Commission Report and the learned counsel

for the petitioners submitted that at this time also the

same policy was adopted by the Government. As it is a

policy decision it is open to the petitioners to go to the

Government with representation. This Court is not

expected at this stage to give any direction to the State

Government. The writ petition is disposed of with the

aforesaid observations. Rule is discharged.

             Sd/-                                           Sd/-
     (SANGITRAO S PATIL, J.)                        (T.V. NALAWADE, J.)



     rsl