Madan Sadashiv Edake And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 5880 Bom

                                                                      12-wp-941-2021.doc

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                             WRIT PETITION NO.941 OF 2021

   Shri Madan Sadashiv Edake & Ors.                       ...        Petitioners
           Versus
   The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                        ...        Respondents
                                         .........
   Mr. Sachin Chavan, for the Petitioners.
   Mrs. S.S. Bhende, AGP for State.
   Mr. Sameer Tambekar, for Respondent Nos.5 & 6.
                                      .........
                                       CORAM        :     K.K. TATED &
                                                          R.I. CHAGLA, JJ.

                                       DATE         :     1st APRIL, 2021.

   ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R.I. CHAGLA, J.) :-


   1              By this Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, the Petitioners are challenging the Government Resolution dated

24.08.2017 issued by Respondent No.1 - State of Maharashtra by which

the State has decided that the additional increment will not be paid to the

employees for the period in which revised pay has been given to them as

per the VIth Pay Commission i.e. for the period 01.10.2006 - 01.10.2015.

These Petitioners further seek directions against the Respondents to give /

release the benefits of one or two additional increments to the Petitioners

forthwith as per the earlier existing policy of the Government /

Waghmare 1 / 13

12-wp-941-2021.doc

Resolutions issued by the Respondent Authority.

2. The Petitioners are duly appointed as Assistant Teachers in

their respective places/primary/girls primary school run by the Zilla

Parishad. The Petitioners are admittedly working in the said schools run by

the Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur but some of them have retired from service.

3. It is the case of the Petitioners that in the year 1974 and

thereafter in the year 1989, there were Government Resolution issued by

the State of Maharashtra by virtue of which the employees who had

rendered outstanding work were decided to be given certain incentives by

the Government. These Government servants whose work was found to

be outstanding for a period of three years, would be eligible for one

advance increment and those whose work were found to be outstanding

for a period of five years, were eligible for two advance increments. By

virtue of Government Resolution dated 31.10.1989, the employees of the

Zilla Parishad were also to be given two advance increments. The

Government Resolution dated 31.10.1989, inter alia, provided that for

granting advance increment to the employees of the Zilla Parishad, a

Committee has to be formed which would be presided under the

chairmanship of the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Parishad. The

Waghmare 2 / 13

12-wp-941-2021.doc

Petitioners have relied upon the Government Resolutions dated

20.06.1989; 29.10.1989/90; 05.11.1992; 04.08.1994 18.04.1996;

22.11.2000 and 14.12.2006 which all concerned the incentives/advance

increments which were to be given to the Government employees for their

excellent/outstanding work.

4. The Petitioners have been recommended pursuant to the

verification Committee of the Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur, having verified the

C.R. reports of the Petitioners on the basis of the then existing policy, for

grant of one or two advance/ additional increments for their excellent

work. Respondent No.5 - the Chief Executive Officer, Kolhapur, had

granted/sanctioned the benefit of one or two advance/additional

increments in favour of the Petitioners vide orders issued in the year 2009

and declared that the Petitioners were entitled for the benefits which will

be different from the regular yearly increments.

5. The Central Government then introduced the VIth Pay

Commission. The State of Maharashtra on the recommendation of the

Central Government, appointed a Committee under the Chairmanship of

P. M. Hakkim on 23.09.2008 which is the State Pay Amendment

Committee, 2008. The Committee presented its report on 20.12.2008 to

the Principal Secretary, Finance Department, State of Maharashtra being Waghmare 3 / 13

12-wp-941-2021.doc

Respondent No.2 herein. Government Resolution dated 27.02.2009 was

issued by Respondent No.2 accepting the recommendations of the Hakkim

Committee report with certain modification in respect of revised pay

structure and revised pension formula as per the VIth pay Commission.

Clause No.3.24 of the Government Resolution dated 27.02.2009 provided

that "other employees except P.B - 4 5% Officers / employee for the

excellent work in their field instead of 3% general rate, 4% additional pay

should be sanctioned. These additional increments will be paid once

within five years. So additional increment as referred by higher rate will

be granted in favour of the employee, therefore, method of one or two

additional increments should be closed". As against this Clause, it was

noted that separate action will be taken by the General Administration

Department.

6. A Circular was issued dated 03.07.2009 by the State of

Maharashtra through its Secretary, General Administrative Department,

State of Maharashtra being Respondent No.3 herein, by which it was

pointed out that the VIth Pay Commission was sought to be implemented

and considering the various facts and circumstances, it was decided that

the payment to the concerned employees who were already granted

advance increments as on 01.10.2006, 01.10.2007 and 01.10.2008 should

be made without taking into consideration those advance increments. It Waghmare 4 / 13

12-wp-941-2021.doc

was further mentioned that the Government would take appropriate

decision with respect to those employees for the purpose of fixation of the

payment and payment schedule would be revised thereafter.

7. The Government of Maharashtra failed to take any decision

on Clause No.3.24 of the Government Resolution dated 27.02.2009 till

24.08.2017. This resulted in fixation of pay of some of the Petitioners

which was done with additional increments being refixed without

additional increments. The Petitioners have relied upon the copies of the

service book in this context.

8. Respondent No.5 had orally communicated to the Petitioners

that the provision of advance/additional increment is not available in the

VIth Pay Commission and that issue was pending before the Government

and as and when Government takes decision, the benefit of the

advance/additional increment will be provided to the Petitioners. On the

basis of the recommendations of Clause No.3.24 of the State Pay Revised

Committee, 2008 and Government Circular dated 03.07.2009, Respondent

No.3 issued the impugned Government Resolution dated 24.08.2017 by

which the benefits of additional increments were denied by giving

retrospective effect. The said Government Resolution provided that the

"Benefits of additional increments should not be granted to those

Waghmare 5 / 13

12-wp-941-2021.doc

employees, revised pay has been paid as per Sixth Pay Commission

(01.01.2006 to 01.10.2015)". The Petitioners being aggrieved by the issue

of the impugned Government Resolution by which the benefits of

additional increments have been denied by giving retrospective effect, has

filed the present Petition.

9. Mr. Sachin Chavan, the learned Counsel appearing for the

Petitioners has submitted that the issue whether the impugned

Government Resolution dated 24.08.2017 is prospective or retrospective is

no longer res-integra. He has relied upon the decision of this Court

(Aurangabad Bench) where similarly situated employees/ teachers

approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.14950 of 2017

challenging the Government Resolution dated 24.08.2017 to the extent of

its applicability and seeking extension of benefits, restoration of orders

passed by the competent authority on the basis of existing Government

Resolutions and continuity of them up to the issuance of Government

Resolution dated 24.08.2017 and for grant of the benefits of advance

increments. This Court (Aurangabad Bench) disposed of the Petitions by

observing that the Government Resolution dated 24.08.2017 will have

prospective effect and not retrospective effect and in the case that benefits

have been afforded to the Petitioners therein for excellent work in the

years 2006, 2007 and 2008, such additional increments shall not be Waghmare 6 / 13

12-wp-941-2021.doc

withdrawn and if any recovery is made pursuant to the same, the same

shall be refunded to the Petitioners. This Court disposed of the Writ

Petition by judgment and order dated 03.04.2019 passed in Writ Petition

No.14950 of 2017 and other connected matters. The same view has been

taken by this Court i.e. Aurangabad Bench in Ganpat Vitthal Dapute and

Ors. v/s. The State of Maharashtra and Ors 1. which has also held that the

Government Resolution dated 24.08.2017 will have prospective effect.

Accordingly, it has been held that as the benefit of advance increments was

granted as per policy of the Government prevailing at that time, the same

would not be withdrawn on the basis of subsequent Government

Resolution dated 24.08.2017.

10. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners have also relied upon

the decisions of this Court in Writ Petition No.4050 of 2017 in the matter

of Uday J. Godave & Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2, which has

been followed by this Bench in the order dated 24.03.2021 in Shri

Appasaheb N. Mali and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others .3. He

has submitted that it has been the consistent view of this Court that the

Government Resolution dated 24.08.2017 which has been impugned

herein will have prospective effect and the benefit of additional

1 Writ Petition No.14797 of 2017 decided on 11th June, 2019. 2 Writ Petition No.4050 of 2017 decided on 22nd October, 2020. 3 Writ Petition (St.) No.532 of 2021decided on 24th March, 2021.

Waghmare                                        7   / 13



                                                                    12-wp-941-2021.doc

increments granted to the Petitioners as per the then prevailing policy of

Respondent-State dated 11.02.1974 and 31.10.1989 ought to be given

effect to in the revised VIth Pay Scale and cannot be withdrawn by virtue

of the Circular dated 12.07.2009 and the Government Resolution dated

24.08.2017. He has accordingly submitted that similar cause of action be

adopted by this Court in this matter.

11. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and with

their assistance perused the papers and proceedings in the matter. This

Court has considered the submissions made on behalf of the Petitioners as

well as taken into consideration the various orders passed by this Court in

the various Writ Petitions referred to and relied upon by the learned

Counsel for the Petitioners and the fact that the Respondents have already

implemented the orders passed in those Writ Petitions by affording the

benefit of advance increments granted to the Petitioners.

12. We have noted that the Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur - Respondent

Nos.5 and 6 opposed this Petition and maintained that they are not ready

to give the same benefits / advance increments to these Petitioners. In

response to this, this Court had directed the learned Advocate for the

Respondent Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur, to take instructions from his client

whether the Zilla Parishad is ready and willing to afford benefits of one or Waghmare 8 / 13

12-wp-941-2021.doc

two advance increments to the Petitioners therein as per the policy of the

State Government dated 11.02.1974 and 31.10.1989 in the revised VIth

pay scale without giving the effect to the Circular dated 03.07.2009 and

Government Resolution dated 24.08.2017. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 - Zilla

Parishad, Kolhapur, have filed their Affidavit dated 22.03.2021.

Respondent Nos.5 and 6 - Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur, have stated that

neither any representation nor any communication has been made by the

Petitioners for grant of similar benefits, as afforded to the Petitioners in

Writ Petition No.4050 of 2017. However, taking into consideration the

order dated 22.10.2020 passed by this Court, the Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur,

shall follow all the directions if given by this Court in the instant Writ

Petition. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the affidavit of Respondent Nos.5 and 6

Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur, dated 22.03.2021 reads thus :

"3. I say that this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 22nd October, 2020 was pleased to direct the Zilla Parishad to accord benefits of one or two advance increment to the petitioners therein as per policy of State Government dated 11/02/1974 and 31/10/1989 in revised Sixth Pay Scale without giving effect to circular dated 03/07/2009 and G.R. dated 24/08/2-17. I say that said order has been complied with and all the petitioners therein were granted benefit as per the policy of State Government.

4. As far as present petitioners are concerned neither any representation nor any communication has been done by them in respect of granting similar benefits as accorded to the petitioners in W. P. No.4050 of 2017. Still taking into consideration the order dated 22/10/2020 passed by this Hon'ble Court, the Zilla Parishad shall follow all the directions Waghmare 9 / 13

12-wp-941-2021.doc

if given by this Court in the instant Writ Petition.

13. It is beyond our comprehension as to what is the necessity for

the Petitioners to file a representation/communication to Respondent -

Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur, to follow the directions given by this Court by

order dated 22.10.2020 in Writ Petition No.4050 of 2017 in the case of

similarly placed Petitioners. This would cause unnecessary burden on the

Petitioners who have already been made to wait for long.

14. We have also perused the order dated 22 nd October, 2020 of

the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 4050 of 2017 (where

one of us K. K. Tated, J was a member) which is quoted as under:-

"1. Rule.

2 By consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 3 By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners are challenging the Circular dated 3 rd July, 2009 and Government Resolution (G.R.) dated 24th August, 2017. 4 The Petitioners are employees of Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur.

Pursuant to the G. R.s dated 11th February, 1074 and 31st October, 1989, the Petitioners in view of their outstanding work were granted either one or two advance increments as on 1 st October 2006, 1st October, 2007 and 1st October, 2008. The Petitioner state that the Respondent - State, however, by Circular dated 3 rd July, 2009 instructed to fix the pay in a revised pay scale as per the recommendation of sixth pay commission without taking into consideration advance increments granted on 1 st October, 2006, 1st October, 2007 and 1st October, 2008. It is stated that the Respondent - State then issued the G. R. dated 24 th August, 2017 and reiterated the instructions issued by Circular dated 3 rd July, Waghmare 10 / 13

12-wp-941-2021.doc

2009. The contention is accrued and vested rights of the Petitioners cannot be taken away by the impugned G. R.

5. On 14th November, 2019, Smt. Geeta R. Kulkarni, Deputy Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai filed an additional Affidavit-in-Reply on behalf of Respondent No.1. Paragraph Nos.3,4 and 5 of the said additional Affidavit-in-Reply read thus:-

"3. I further say and submit that this Hon'ble Court at Aurangabad Bench in Writ Petition No.10348 of 2019 (Dilip Sambhaji Malve and others) has given judgment on 21.08.2019. In said judgment their Lordships has mentioned that the Government Resolution dt. 24.08.2017 will have prospective effect that not retrospective and in that case if benefits was accorded to petitioners of excellent work in the year 2006 to 2009, then same shall not be withdrawn and if any recovery is made pursuant to the same, shall be refunded to the petitioners. The copy of the said judgment hereto Annexed and marked as Exhibit-1.

4 I say and submit that this Hon'ble Court at Aurangabad bench in its another judgment in W.P. No.11599/2019 on the subject of Advance Increment to District Awardee Teachers dated 21.09.2019 has given six months period for considering the claim of petitioners. The copy of the said Judgment hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit-II. 5 I say and submit that the Government, in view of this 6 months period granted by this Hon'ble Court, has undertaken steps, to take necessary steps in the issue as stated above. The matter is not only related with petitioners but also all such state employees. Therefore, in this matter, the policy decision has to be taken at the level of Government in consultation with Law and Judiciary Department and Finance Department. For this more time is required. Therefore, by considering period given by the Hon'ble High Court, at Aurangabad bench in above mentioned Writ Petition No.11599 of 2019, I urged this Hon'ble Court to grant period of six months to settle the matter."

In view of paragraph No.5 of additional Affidavit-in-Reply, it was incumbent upon the Respondent -State to take a policy decision with regard to issue in question, within six months. However, no policy decision is placed on record till date.

Waghmare                                   11   / 13



                                                                      12-wp-941-2021.doc

6. This Court (Aurangabad bench) in Writ Petition No.14797 of 2017 (Ganpat Vitthal Dapute and Ors. v/s. The State of Maharashtra and ors) vide its order dated 11th June, 2019, held that the G. R. dated 24 th August, 2017 will have prospective effect. This Court, accordingly, held that the benefit of advance increments granted as per the policy of the Government prevailing at that time, the same would not be withdrawn on the basis of subsequent G.R. dated 24th August, 2017. Considering the fact that the Respondent - State has not yet taken any policy decision with regard to the issue in question, we are constrained to pass similar order. In the result, we pass the following order:-

"(a) The Respondents are directed to accord the benefit of advance increments granted to the Petitioners as per the policy of the Respondent- State dated 11th February, 1974 and 31st October, 1989 in the revise Sixth Pay Scale without giving any effect of subsequent Circular dated 3 rd July, 2009 and G. R. dated 24th August, 2017.

(b) Recovery, if any, made pursuant to the Circular dated 3rd July, 2009 or G. R. dated 24th August, 2017 from the Petitioners shall be refunded to them.

(c) Rule made absolute accordingly.

(d) No order as to costs."

15. It is observed that the issue of challenge to Circular dated 3 rd

July, 2009 and G. R. dated 24 th August, 2017 issued by Respondent No.1 -

State Government in this Petition, has already been decided by this Court

in the case of Uday J. Godave (supra) and Shri Appasaheb M. Mali

(Supra) as well as the other decisions of this Court referred to above.

Being in respectful agreement with the same, the Petitioners being

similarly placed, we pass the following order:-

(a) Respondents are directed to accord the benefit of advance increments granted to the Petitioners as per the policy of the

Waghmare 12 / 13

12-wp-941-2021.doc

Respondent-State dated 11th February, 1974 and 31st October, 1989 in the revised Sixth Pay Scale without giving any effect of subsequent Circular dated 3rd July, 2009 and G. R. dated 24 th August, 2017.

(b) Recovery, if any, made pursuant to the Circular dated 3 rd July, 2009 or G. R. dated 24th August, 2017 from the Petitioners shall be refunded to them.

(c) Rule is accordingly made absolute in the above terms.

   (d)     No order as to costs.



              ( R.I. CHAGLA, J. )                      ( K.K. TATED, J. )




Waghmare                                   13   / 13