Pravin S/O Satyawan Bandre And ... vs The State Of Maharastra, Through ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 17450 Bom

                                                       WP.3025.19.J
                                 1

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
                             ...

WRIT PETITION NO. 3025/2019

1) Shri Pravin s/o Satyawan Bandre Aged 43 years, occu: service R/o Plot No. 149, Mahalaxmi Nagar, Manewada Road, Nagpur.

2) Shri Leeladhar s/o Bhauraoji Pathe Aged 53 years, occu: service R/o 275 Vinkar Colony, Manewada-Besa Road, Nagpur.

3) Ravindra s/o Kisanrao Gayner Aged 51 years, occu: service R/o Mahalaxmi nagar, Manewada Road, Nagpur.

4) Shri Prabhakar s/o Raghunath Pardhi Aged 57 years, occu: service R/o Shakti Mata Nagar, Nagpur.

5) Shri Chandrashekhar s/o Bapurao Rakshe Aged 50 years, occu: service R/o 10, Joseph Vidyalaya Near Jaytala,Nagpur 36. ..PETITIONERS

versus

1) The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Department of Town Development Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

2) The Municipal Corporation, Nagpur Through its Commissioner, Nagpur.

3) Municipal Corporation, Nagpur Through its Assistant Commissioner (General Administration) Nagpur. .. RESPONDENTS WP.3025.19.J

..................................................................................................................

Mr S.S.Shingane, Advocate for petitioners Mr. Anand Fulzele, Additional Govt.Pleader for Respdt.No.1 Mr. Rohan Chhabra, Advocate for Respondent nos. 2 and 3 ................................................................................................................

CORAM: SUNIL B. SHUKRE & ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ DATED : 15th December, 2021.

ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER SUNIL B.SHUKRE, J.)

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

consent.

3. The Respondent no.1-i.e. State of Maharashtra, through its

Secretary Department of Town Development, has filed an affidavit-in-

reply dated 6th October, 2020, in which in paragraph 11 a statement

has been made that the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Nagpur

has not proposed anything about fixation of the pay-scale of the

present petitioners at par with the employees of Water Supply

Department of the Nagpur Municipal Corporation, while submitting

aforementioned proposals of the Nagpur Municipal Corporation to the

State Government. The expression 'aforementioned proposals' has to be

understood by making a reference to the statements made in earlier

paragraph. Perusal of the earlier paragraph would show that there

were three proposals sent to respondent no.1 by Commissioner, NMC WP.3025.19.J

Nagpur which were of the dates of 4 th February, 2017, 12th January,

2018 and 19th September, 2019. So, as per the stand of the respondent

no.1, the Municipal Corporation has not sent any proposal for bringing

the pay-scale of the petitioners at par with the employees of the Water

Supply Department. It may be mentioned here that the proposal dated

4th February, 2017 is relevant from the view-point of the petitioners as

according to the petitioners, it is this proposal which covers their cases.

As regards this proposal dated 4th February,2017 there is a statement

assertively made in paragraph 6 of the reply filed on behalf of the

Corporation by its Commissioner dated 4.1.2021. In this paragraph, a

categorical statement has been made that on 4.2.2017, the respondent

nos. 2 and 3 has submitted to the respondent no.1 the staffing pattern

of the Corporation wherein the petitioners have been placed at the

same grade and same pay scale of the employees of the Water Supply

Department and the petitioners have been brought at the same grade

and pay-scale as that of the employees of the Water Supply Department.

As approval to this proposal has been sought, it would be for the

respondent no.1 to appropriately respond to the same. We are,

therefore, of the view that the dispute involved in this petition can be

resolved by issuing necessary directions to the respondent no.1.

WP.3025.19.J

4. However there is a glitch in even processing the proposal

dated 04.02.2017 properly as it is submitted by learned counsel for

the petitioners that the pay scale indicated therein did not reflect the

correct position. If that is so, it would be better that the respondent

nos. 2 and 3 are directed to send the correct proposal afresh to the

respondent no.1 for its due consideration and appropriate decision.

5. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed. We direct

the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to prepare a modified proposal to

respondent no.1 for upgradation of the pay-scale of the petitioners at

the same level as that of employees of the Water Supply Department

and forward the same to the respondent no.1 within a period of two

months from the date of this order. We further direct the respondent

no.1 to decide the proposal freshly received by it in accordance with

law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this

order.

6. By keeping all questions raised in the petition open, we

dispose of the petition. Rule is made absolute accordingly.

                  JUDGE                          JUDGE

sahare                                                   Digitally Signed ByNARENDRA
                                                         BHAGWANTRAO SAHARE
                                                         Location:
                                                         Signing Date:16.12.2021 10:29