Bombay High Court
Nandkumar Bhagwanappa Mandge And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 30 November, 2017
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala
(1) wp9279.16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 9279 OF 2016
1. Nandkumar s/o. Bhagwanappa Mandge .. Petitioners
Age.49 years, Occ. Service,
R/at Osmanabad,
Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad.
2. Prakash s/o. Vishwanath Pimple
Age. 57 years, Occ. Service,
R/at Osmanabad,
Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad.
3. Vivek s/o. Gopalrao Kulkarni
Age. 56 years, Occ. Service,
R/at Osmanabad,
Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad.
4. Arun s/o. Vishnu Sarang,
Age. 56 years, Occ. Service,
R/at Lohara, Tq. Lohara,
Dist. Osmanabad.
5. Kashinath s/o. Shivdas Kurund
Age. 57 years, Occ. Service,
R/at Kallam, Tq. Kallam,
Dist. Osmanabad.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents
through the Secretary,
Rural Development and Water
Conservation Department,
Maharashtra State, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32.
::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2017 01:33:07 :::
(2) wp9279.16
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad,
Dist. Osmanabad.
3. The Executive Engineer,
(Construction & Irrigation),
Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad,
Dist. Osmanabad.
4. The Sub-Divisional Engineer,
Minor Irrigation, Z.P. Omerga,
Tq.Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad.
5. The Block Development Officer,
Panchayat Samitee, Somanabad,
Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad.
Mr.R.P. Bhumkar, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.C.S. Kulkarni, AGP for respondent No.1.
Mr.U.B. Bondar, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 5.
CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA &
S.M.GAVHANE,JJ.
DATED : 30.11.2017
ORAL JUDGMENT [PER : S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J.] :-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the
consent of the parties, taken up for final hearing.
2. The petitioner assails the order of the
respondents thereby claiming recovery and re-fixing the
salary.
(3) wp9279.16
3. Mr. Bhumkar, learned advocate for the
petitioners submits that the petitioners were initially
working as Mistri (Grade-II). In the year 1999, six
cadres were merged and were designated as Civil
Engineering Assistant. On completion of 12 years of
service and completing 45 years of age, the petitioners
were granted benefit of ACPS. Learned Counsel submits
that show-cause notices were issued to the petitioners on
18.08.2016 as to show cause why recovery should not be
claimed and re-fixation of salary is made. On 19.08.2016
order is passed claiming the recovery. Learned Advocate
submits that the petitioners were rightly awarded with
the benefit of ACPS on completion of 12 years of service
and on completion of 45 years of age. The impugned order
is incorrect. Learned advocate relies on the judgment of
Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 5182 of
2012 dated 30.01.2014 and order dated 12.08.2014 in Writ
Petition No.1495 of 2014 with connected Writ Petitions.
(4) wp9279.16
4. Mr. Bondar, learned advocate for the Zilla
Parishad submits that the Zilla Parishad relied upon
circular issued by the State dated 20.07.2014. It is
upon petitioners' completing 45 years of age and after
entering the cadre of Civil Engineering Assistant, they
have to complete 12 years of service and thereafter
benefit is to be given to them and no illegality is
committed in that regard.
5. We have also heard learned AGP.
6. Certainly the benefit to the petitioners could
not have been given before completion of 45 years of age
and on completion of 12 years of service.
7. The petitioners have given the details of date
of appointment, the date of completion of 45 years of age
and the date of completion of 12 years of service. Same
is reproduced as under :-
(5) wp9279.16
Sr. Name Date of Completion Date of
No. Appointment of 14 years completion
of Age or of 12
qualifying years
date services
1 Nandkumar Bhagwanappa 05/09/1990 06/03/2002 14/09/2009
Mande
2 Prakash Vishwanath Pimple 05/06/1985 06/03/2002 12/06/1997
3 Arun Vishnu Sarang 01/04/1982 10/06/2006 01/04/2000
4 Vivek Gopalrao Kulkarni 04/06/1985 01/06/2006 04/06/1997
5 Kashinath Shivdas Kurund 01/04/1988 12/30/2003 01/04/2000
8. It is submitted that even if the petitioners
have completed the age of 45 years earlier, they are
given benefit only after completing 12 years of service.
Even if the petitioners have completed 12 years earlier,
they have been given benefit only after completing 45
years of age. Same was the proper method. The Division
Bench of this Court in case of Writ Petition No.5182 of
2012 under order dated 30.01.2014 has categorically
observed that the petitioner was entitled to pay-scale of
Junior Engineer on completion of 12 years of Mistri
(Grad-I). Same is the view taken in Writ Petition No.1495
of 2014.
(6) wp9279.16
9. Considering the above, the writ petition is
allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside.
Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (B). No
costs.
[S.M.GAVHANE,J.] [S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.]
snk/2017/NOV17/wp9279.16
