Ramrao Kishanrao Pawar vs The State Of Mah And Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 9086 Bom

                                      1

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                    WRIT PETITION NO. 2344 OF 2008
                                 WITH
                  CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10659 OF 2015

          Ramrao Kishanrao Pawar.
          Age : 45 years, Occ. Service,
          R/o. Jintur, Dist. Parbhani.                          ...Petitioner.

                   Versus

 1.       The State of Maharashtra.

 2.       The Directorate of the Municipal Council
          Administration, Secretriate, sea face,
          Poch Kanwala Marg, Warali, Mumbai.               ...Respondents.

 Advocate for Petitioner : Shri Ajinkya Kale
                           h/f. Shri S.B. Talekar.
 AGP for Respondent No. 1 : Shri B.A. Shinde.

                                      CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &
                                                 SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.

Dated : 27th November, 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) :-

1. By this petition, the petitioner has put forth the following

prayers at Clause 10 (B), (C) and (D) :-

"B. By issuing writ of mandamus or order or directions

against the respondents. Respondents be directed to

consider the claim of the petitioner as per Govt. resolution

14th June 2000 w.e.f. 1989 with all monitory benefits and

to pay the same to the petitioner.

C) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this

petitioner respondents are directed to pay regularly salary

in the pay scale (Rs. 6500-10500 as per fifth pay

commission) for the post of Junior Engineer Like

petitioner working in Municipal Council.

D) The respondents kindly be directed to give the effect

of the revise pay scale Rs. 2000-32000/- (as per fifth pay

commission of Rs. 6500-10500/-) to the petitioner with

retrospective effect from which petitioner is entitle and

other monitory benefits with effect from the date of

appointment."

2. We have considered the submissions of the learned

advocate for the petitioner and the learned AGP on behalf of the

State.

3. It is pointed out that, by communication dated

06/05/2015, by the Desk Officer, Urban Development

Department addressed to respondent No. 2/Director of

Municipal Council Administration, Mumbai, a request is made

to grant all the benefits to the petitioner as mentioned in the

communication in the light of the decision taken by the Urban

Development Department. The grievance of the petitioner, is

therefore, redressed, but for the fact, as is voiced by the

petitioner, that respondent No. 2 is not implementing the said

decision.

4. It is also brought to our notice that in a matter of similar

nature in Writ Petition No. 10594/2010 filed by Ramesh Jadhav

Patel Versus The State of Maharashtra and others, this Court

has issued directions for the grant of revised pay scale as per

the government resolution dated 11/08/1995.

5. We do not find from the record before us any impediment

as regards the implementation of the directions set out in the

communication dated 06/05/2015.

6. Considering the above, this petition is partly allowed with

the direction to respondent No. 2, to implement the decision of

the Urban Development Department as is set out in the

communication dated 06/05/2015, as expeditiously as possible

and preferably within a period of eight weeks from today. Rule

is made partly absolute, in the above terms.

7. Pending Civil Application No. 10659/2015, does not

survive and stands disposed of.

( SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J. ) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )

S.P.C.