Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra & Anr vs Govt. Press Employees Asson. & 4 ... on 31 May, 2017
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
wp2625.02 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2625 OF 2002
1. The State of Maharashtra
through the Secretary,
Department of Industries,
Energy and Labour,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Director,
Government Printing and
Stationary, Netaji Subhash
Road, Mumbai. ... PETITIONERS
Versus
1. Government Press Employees
Association, Nagpur having its
registered No.NGP/2388, through
its Secretary Shri Ramrao s/o
Yadaorao Nandurkar, aged 48
years, occupation - Service,
having its office in Civil Lines,
Nagpur.
2. Shri V.V. Bendale,
aged about 42 years, occupation
Service, r/o Civil Lines, Nagpur.
3. Shri A.K. Mule,
aged about years, occupation
Service, r/o Civil Lines, Nagpur.
4. Shri P.G. Tumsare,
aged about 30 years, occupation
Service, r/o Civil Lines, Nagpur.
5. Shri A. Khalique,
aged about 40 years, occupation
Service, r/o Civil Lines, Nagpur. ... RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 02/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2017 00:47:59 :::
wp2625.02 2
Shri N.R. Patil, AGP for the petitioners.
.....
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
Z.A. HAQ, JJ.
MAY 31, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
Heard Shri Patil, learned AGP for the petitioners.
Nobody appears for the respondents.
2. The learned AGP submits that the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal (MAT), by impugned judgment,
granted relief to Respondent No. 3 - Shri A.K. Mule only. The
direction has been issued to pay him salary for the post of
Planning Supervisor with effect from 13.07.1992 till he was
discharging the duties of said post. His grievance that his post
was changed on 13.07.1992 appears to have been accepted by
the MAT.
3. The learned AGP submits that Respondent No. 3
worked on that post from 13.07.1992 till 12.04.2001. While
working on the post of Planning Supervisor and Mono
Operator, he was not paid arrears of salary as he was entitled to
the same. During this period, pay-scale of Mono Operator was
Rs.1320-30-1560-40-2040 and that of Planning Supervisor was
Rs.1600-50-2300-60-2600. As per Government Resolution
dated 08.06.1995, benefit of time bound promotion was given
from 01.10.1994 to Shri Mule in the pay-scale of Rs.1400-40-
1800-50-2300 and accordingly he was also given increased
salary. As he was given more salary than he was entitled to
while working on the post of Mono Operator as also Planning
Supervisor, he cannot be given any arrears and orders of MAT
to that extent are unsustainable.
4. We find this contention unsustainable. We note
that this contention is specifically raised in the affidavit filed on
behalf of the petitioners sworn by Sudesh s/o Premlal
Meshram, In-charge Manager, Government Press & Book Depo,
Nagpur, dated 19.08.2014. The fact that Respondent No. 3
was working on the post of Planning Supervisor from
13.07.1992 to 12.04.2001 is not in dispute in this affidavit.
The pay-scale for that post opens from Rs.1600/-. Thus, it is
more than the pay-scale of Mono Operator. Coming to time
bound promotion scale to Respondent No. 3 is also irrelevant
because that pay-scale was Rs.1400-2300.
5. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal finds that
Respondent No. 3 was working on the post of Planning
Supervisor and, therefore, has directed his employer to pay him
wages for that post. The employer has not shown that those
wages were paid.
6. When O.A. was filed before the MAT in the year
1991, Respondent No. 3 was 40 years old. As of today, he is
about 66 years old and must have retired sometimes in the year
2008-09. This Court has admitted the petition for final hearing
on 27.08.2002 but refused to grant any interim relief. With the
result, direction of the MAT must have been obeyed by now.
The MAT has only directed the employer to pay wages for the
work which respondent No. 3 has actually discharged.
7. We do not find any jurisdictional error or perversity
in this approach. No case is made out. Writ Petition is
dismissed. Rule discharged. However, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
******
*GS.
