Bombay High Court
Rajendra Ramaji Dhawale And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 1 February, 2021
Bench: K.K. Tated, R. I. Chagla
14.803.13-wp+.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally
signed by
CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION
Basavraj
Basavraj G. Patil
G. Patil Date:
2021.02.04
WRIT PETITION NO.803/2013
13:10:37
+0530
(WRIT PETITION NO.7187/2015 AURANGABAD BENCH)
Rajendra Ramaji Dhawale & Ors. ..... Petitioners
Vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..... Respondents
Mr. S. B. Talekar & Madhavi Ayyapan I/b. Talekar &
Associates for the Petitioner
Mr. S. S. Panchapor, AGP for the State
Mr. S. R. Nargolkar for Respondent No.2.
WITH
Writ Petition No.12140/2019
Rajendra Ramaji Dhawale & Ors. ..... Petitioners
Vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..... Respondents
Mr. Sanjay Kulkarni for the Petitioners
Mr. Rajesh S. Datar for Respondent Nos.1 and 2
Mr. S. S. Panchpor, AGP for the State
CORAM: K.K.TATED &
RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ.
DATED : FEBRUARY 1, 2021
P.C.
1 Heard. By these petitions under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the Petitioners are seeking
implementation of the recommendations of the Hon'ble
Shetty Commission with other benefits.
Basavraj G. Patil 1/4
14.803.13-wp+.odt
2 The learned Government Pleader for the State seeks
some time to take instructions. The learned counsel for
the High Court submits that they received communication
from the State to hold a joint meeting to resolve the dispute
in the matter.
3 The learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed order in All India
Judges Association & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
2015 SCC OnLine SC 310 holding that the High Court
should see that the implementation of the Shetty
Commission should be done immediately. To that effect, he
relies on para 20 and 21 of the said order, which reads thus:
"20. In the light of our above conclusion, we direct as
under:
i. Such of those States other than the States
of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Assam, Punjab
and Haryana and West Bengal, wherever the
Shetty Commission has tabulated the financial
estimate on the recommendations in the report
as has been noted and extracted with reference
to NCT of Delhi wherein any special allowance,
medical allowance TA/special pay were directed
to be given on monthly basis, such payment
should be continued to be made w.e.f. 01.04.2003
and even after the coming into effect of the 6 th
Pay Commission recommendation from
01.01.2006 till any modification or revision is
made with reference to such
allowances/TA/special pay in any future Pay
Commission recommendation of the State or
Centre.
Basavraj G. Patil 2/4
14.803.13-wp+.odt
ii. Wherever under the Shetty Commission
recommendation, a higher scale of pay is
recommended in the said tabular format for any
category of employees apart from applying such
higher scale of pay for the period 01.04.2003 up
to 31.12.2005 as from 01.01.2006, the
corresponding revision should be only with
reference to such higher pay scale recommended
and made applicable to those categories of
employees as revised under the 6 th Pay
Commission Report and which came to be
implemented from 01.01.2006. Instead of
adopting the said manner of payment, if any of
the States had resorted to the revised pay-scale
corresponding to the scale of pay which was
existing prior to the recommendation of the
Shetty Commission Report, the States are
hereby directed to rectify such defect and
calculate the revised pay-scale on the above
footing as directed by us, work out the difference
payable to those categories of employees payable
from 01.01.2006 and effect such a payment with
effect from the month of April, 2015 payable in
May, 2015. The arrears of the difference payable
for the past period ending with March, 2015
should be paid in one lump sum or in
installments, in any case within nine months
from the date of this judgment i.e. on or before
31.12.2015.
iii. Insofar as one advance increment which
was recommended by the Shetty Commission for
all the common category posts for whom no
other scale of pay other than what was existing,
is concerned, as directed by this Court in the
order dated 07.10.2009, if such advance
increment had been paid based on the existing
pay-scale, there is no need for making any
further payment on that account. It is needless
to state that if for any reason, such advance
increment on the existing pay-scale has been
omitted to be paid in those cases the concerned
State Government should effect the payment as
directed in our order dated 07.10.2009.
Basavraj G. Patil 3/4
14.803.13-wp+.odt
iv. It is reiterated that the above direction in
regard to the implementation of 6 th Pay
Commission recommendation will hold good
even for implementation of any future pay
Commission recommendation.
v. Whatever pending applications before the
High Court on the administrative side or on the
judicial side shall be considered and disposed of
expeditiously preferably within three months.
21. In the light of our above directions in this
judgment, wherever any issue is raised by any of the
employees working in different States, such
grievances raised by way of representation or by
moving appropriate petitions in the respective High
Courts shall be examined and appropriate orders
passed wherever it finds that such grievances are to
be redressed, in tune with the orders passed herein."
4 Considering the request made by the learned
Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the High
Court, Office is directed to place the matter on board
01.03.2021.
5 Liberty granted to the parties to file their reply,
rejoinder and sur-rejoinder, if any, with copy to other side.
S.O. to 01.03.2021.
(RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, J.) (K.K.TATED, J.)
Basavraj G. Patil 4/4
