Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra & Anr vs The Ground Water Eng.Amt. & 2 Ors on 29 May, 2017
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
1 jg.wp640.02.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
Writ Petition No. 640 of 2002
(1) The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary to Govt. of
Maharashtra in the Department
of Water Supply & Sanitation,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
(2) The Director - General Ground Water
Surveys and Development Agency,
Near P.M.T. Building, Swargate, Pune. ..... Petitioners
// Versus //
(1) The Ground Water Engineer's
Through its President, 8 Shanti Vihar
Colony, Opposite Commissioner's
Office, Camp, Amravati, Tah. & Distt.
Amravati.
(2) Shri Dnyandeo Ganpatrao Gawande,
69, Prabha Colony, Jalaram Nagar,
Amravati, Tah. Distt. Amravati.
(3) Manohar s/o Gopalrao Ghatwai,
R/o Ambazari Layout, Nagpur. ..... Respondents
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri N. R. Patil, Asst. Govt Pleader for the petitioners
None for the respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI and
Z. A. HAQ, JJ.
DATE : 29/05/2017.
Oral Judgment (Per : B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.)
Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing
2 jg.wp640.02.odt
for the petitioners. Nobody for the respondents.
2. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal is taking recourse to doctrine of
equal pay for equal work while delivering order dated 12-9-2001 in
O.A. No. 457/1996. He has taken us through relevant papers to
substantiate his contentions.
3. We find that the State Government in Irrigation
Department vide Government Resolution dated 16-4-1984 granted
status of Gazetted Officer, Class-II (Junior Grade) to Junior Engineers
who were degree holders or diploma holders in the discipline of Civil,
Mechanical and Electrical Engineering along with Electrical and
Mechanical streams working in Irrigation Department, Public Works
Department and in Engineering Section of Agriculture Department.
Status was given from the date of 1-4-1981 with pay scale of Rs. 600-
950. It appears that its benefit was not given to applicants before the
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (present respondents). State
Government vide Government Resolution dated 10-7-1990 altered
designation of applicants from Mechanical Supervisor to that of Junior
Engineer, Class-III. The applicants made repeated requests for giving
them status and benefits as per Government Resolution dated
3 jg.wp640.02.odt
16-4-1984. The State Government through its Rural Department and
Water Conservation Department issued Government Resolution dated
22-7-1994 and stated that Junior Engineers like applicants would be
designated as Junior Engineers, Class-II (Junior) and they would be
given pay scale of Rs. 2000-3200 from 10-7-1990. This action was
challenged by the applicants. They sought similar benefits as extended
to others from 1-4-1981 in terms of Government Resolution dated
16-4-1984. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, after hearing all
parties, allowed the application and granted said benefits with effect
from 1-4-1981. This Court has on 18-6-2002 refused to grant any
interim order. Respondents have filed returns before this Court (copy
shown by learned Assistant Government Pleader). Along with return,
Government Resolution issued on 2-7-2002 after mentioning of refusal
of grant of interim order has been annexed. The decision of
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has been implemented by said
Government Resolution.
4. Respondent no. 2 - Dnyandeo Ganpatrao Gawande was
aged about 46 years and respondent no. 3 - Manohar Gopalrao
Ghatwai was 40 years in June, 1996 when they approached
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. Thus, as on today, they must
have crossed the age of superannuation.
4 jg.wp640.02.odt
5. Their status or equivalence with others to whom benefits
of Government Resolution dated 16-4-1984 was granted has been
accepted by the State Government on 22-8-1994. Therefore, prima
facie it does not appear to be a case of equal pay for equal work. As
their equivalence was accepted, they only sought equal treatment
i.e. release of benefits in terms of Government Resolution dated
16-4-1984. In present facts, nobody is appearing for the respondents.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that State Government
has issued subsequent Government Resolutions which may have some
bearings on controversy. In the present matter, no recovery can be
ordered from the respondents as they have succeeded before the
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal and after refusal of this Court
to grant interim orders, by Government Resolution, benefit has been
extended to them.
6. In this situation, as the later Government Resolution dated
2-7-2002 has been issued subject to orders in present writ petition by
this Court, we clarify that all arguments sought to be urged by
learned Assistant Government Pleader are kept open.
5 jg.wp640.02.odt
7. Writ petition is dismissed accordingly. Rule discharged.
No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
wasnik
