Bombay High Court
Vinayak Trimbakrao Mahalle vs Chief Executive Officer,Zp And ... on 31 May, 2017
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
1 wp2702.02
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.2702/2002
Vinayak Trimbakrao Mahalle,
aged about 60 Yrs., Occu. Nil,
R/o Shikshak Colony, Amravati,
Tq. and Distt. Amravati. ..Petitioner.
..Vs..
1. Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Amravati,
Tq. and Distt. Amravati.
2. Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Amravati,
Tq. and Distt. Amravati. ..Respondents.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
None for the petitioner.
None for the respondents.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND Z.A.HAQ JJ.
DATED : 31.05.2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.)
1. None for the petitioner and respondents.
2. In this petition filed on 23.7.2002 petitioner then about 60 years old
claims a direction to the employer to award him higher pay scale of
1640-2900 w.e.f. 1.10.1986 till his superannuation with all consequential
benefits and to grant him select grade pay of Rs.2000-3200 w.e.f. 1.10.1998.
2 wp2702.02
A direction to employer to fix his pension accordingly has also been sought.
There is also a request to direct the respondents to implement order of
Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati dated 3rd June, 1999.
3. It appears that petitioner had completed more than 12 years of
service and, therefore, he claims fixation in terms of report of Chatopadhyay
Commission from 1.10.1986. He has reached stage of superannuation on
26.2.1999. Perusal of appeal memo filed before Additional Commissioner
reveals that he entered employment on 18.12.1967 and had completed
uninterrupted service of 12 years as on 10.5.1984. He, therefore, claims pay
scale of 1640-2900 from 1.1.1986 as per report of Chatopadhyah Commission
and other pay scale as mentioned supra.
4. The appeal was opposed by respondents and they had filed their
reply accordingly before Additional Commissioner.
5. Order of Additional Commissioner dated 3rd June, 1999 reveals that
appeal was taken on board on oral request of appellant. Order does not show
that respondent - employer was present or heard on that day. Additional
Commissioner has directed employer to settle the claim of appellant within a
period of one month considering the fact that appellant had already
superannuated on 26.2.1999.
3 wp2702.02
6. Thus this order does not record any finding either way on any
disputed issue.
7. A return has been filed before this Court by respondents on
18.9.2003. Its copy has been served upon on petitioner on 16.9.2003.
8. There at Annexure R-A resolution of Government of Maharashtra
dated 4th April, 1990 making senior grade pay scale and selection grade pay
scale applicable to the Teachers like petitioner has been annexed. Pay scales
claimed by petitioner are as per this State Government resolution. Clause 3(b)
contemplates a finding by Committee which assesses performance of petitioner
that his work as Teacher was satisfactory. Clause 3(c) mandates completion
of in service training of minimum 3 weeks prescribed by the department.
9. Return on affidavit of respondents pointed out performance and
service record of petitioner. They have pointed out that he was under
suspension from 31.7.1976 to 8.1.1979 and that period was treated as
suspension for all purposes by order dated 3 rd June, 1982. While reinstating
him after suspension, his five grade increments were stopped with permanent
effect. They have further stated that entire service record from 1967 was not
satisfactory and except for the year 1987 - 1988, all his annual confidential
reports were of average grade or below average etc. They have specifically
4 wp2702.02
averred that petitioner did not satisfy conditions stipulated in Sub-clauses (b)
and (c) supra. As petitioner was not eligible to senior grade pay scale, there
was no question of his being eligible to next benefit i.e. of selection grade pay
scale.
10. As already mentioned supra after receipt of this affidavit petitioner
has not filed any counter till date. Thus, affidavit filed by the
respondent - employer based upon its records needs to be accepted and acted
upon.
11. We, therefore, find that respondents have rightly not granted either
senior grade or selection grade pay scale to petitioner.
12. There is no merit in the petition. It is accordingly dismissed. Rule
discharged. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Tambaskar.
