Avinash S/O Deoraoji Maldhure vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 294 Bom

WP  5893/11                                           1                            Judgment


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                  NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
                       WRIT PETITION No. 5893/2011

Avinash s/o Deoraoji Maldhure,
Aged about 56 years, Occ: Sectional 
Engineer (Mechanical), Zilla Parishad,
Chandrapur.                                                                        PETITIONER

                                     .....VERSUS.....
1.    The State of Maharashtra,
      through its Secretary, 
      Rural Development & Water
      Conservation Department,
      Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
2.    The Commissioner,
      Nagpur Division, Nagpur.
3.    Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur,
      through its Chief Executive Officer,
      Civil Lines, Chandrapur.                                                     RESPONDENTS

                     Shri C.N. Adgokar, counsel for the petitioner.
     Ms T.H. Udeshi, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos.1 and 2.
                             None for the respondent no.3.

                                       CORAM :SMT.VASANTI  A  NAIK AND
                                                     V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.           

DATE : 3 RD MARCH, 2017.

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

By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction against

the respondent no.3-Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur to implement its order,

dated 25.06.2010 by which the petitioner was entitled to deemed date of

promotion on the post of Sectional Engineer with effect from 01.04.1986.

The petitioner has sought the pay-fixation with effect from 01.04.1986

and has also sought the arrears of difference of pay-scale for the period

from 01.04.1986 till the petitioner was actually upgraded-promoted.

WP 5893/11 2 Judgment

Shri Adgokar, the learned counsel for the petitioner,

submitted that in view of the Government Resolution, dated 26.04.2001,

it was necessary for the respondent no.3 to upgrade the petitioner with

effect from 01.04.1986 but, the respondent no.3 did not grant the

upgradation till the petitioner filed the writ petition. It is stated that

though the petitioner is granted upgradation with effect from 01.04.1986

during the pendency of the writ petition, the respondent no.3 has not

paid the arrears of salary in pursuance of the upgradation-promotion to

the post of Sectional Engineer with effect from 01.04.1986. It is stated

that it would be necessary for the respondent no.3 to fix the pay of the

petitioner with effect from 01.04.1986 as per his upgradation and also

pay the monetary benefits flowing from the promotion-upgradation with

effect from 01.04.1986.

Ms Udeshi, the learned Assistant Government Pleader

appearing for the respondent nos.1 and 2, submitted that no claim is

made by the petitioner against the respondent nos.1 and 2 and, hence,

the respondent nos.1 and 2 have nothing to say in the matter. It is,

however, stated that it does not appear from the Government Resolution,

dated 26.04.2001 or any other document that is annexed to the writ

petition that the petitioner would be entitled to the actual monetary

benefits flowing from the order of upgradation.

WP 5893/11 3 Judgment

It is not in dispute that during the pendency of the writ

petition, in pursuance of our interim order, the respondent no.3 has

granted upgradation to the petitioner with effect from 01.04.1986. The

petitioner is granted deemed date of promotion-upgradation with effect

from 01.04.1986 as per the order of the respondent no.3, dated

25.06.2010 that is sought to be implemented. The petitioner has now

made the claim for grant of actual monetary benefits. The petitioner has

admittedly not worked on the post of Sectional engineer on which he is

granted deemed date of promotion with effect from 01.04.1986. Since

the petitioner had not worked on the upgraded post from 01.04.1986 till

he was actually promoted on the said post, it would not be possible to

direct the respondent no.3 to grant the actual monetary benefits to the

petitioner in terms of the deemed date of promotion-upgradation with

effect from 01.04.1986, several years thereafter. There is nothing in the

Government Resolution, dated 26.04.2001 that directs either the State

Government or the Zilla Parishad to pay the actual monetary benefits

flowing from the order of deemed date of upgradation-promotion. In the

circumstances of the case, a direction cannot be issued against the

respondent no.3 to grant the actual monetary benefits flowing from the

deemed date of promotion-upgradation with effect from 01.04.1986.

It would, however, be necessary to direct the respondent no.3 to fix

the pay of the petitioner in the upgraded-promoted post by considering

his deemed date of promotion-upgradation to be 01.04.1986 and

WP 5893/11 4 Judgment

consider granting the consequential benefits to the petitioner that would

flow from the upgradation except the actual monetary benefits for the

period, during which the petitioner did not work on the promoted-

upgraded post.

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

allowed. The respondent no.3 is directed to fix the pay of the petitioner

in the upgraded-promoted post by considering his deemed date of

promotion-upgradation to be 01.04.1986 and grant the consequential

benefits flowing from the pay-fixation to the petitioner except the actual

monetary benefits from 01.04.1986 till the date of which the petitioner

was actually upgraded-promoted.

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

to costs.

\




                 JUDGE                                     JUDGE

APTE