Ganesh Bansilal Chandole And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 15436 Bom

                                        1                        998-WP-10969-21.odt



              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                         WRIT PETITION NO. 10969 OF 2021

                          VILAS GIRAJU SONAWANE
                                   VERSUS
                  THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                                     ...
                                    WITH
                      WRIT PETITION NO. 10974 OF 2021

                  GANESH BANSILAL CHANDOLE AND OTHERS
                                      VERSUS
                  THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                                        ...
                   Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Balaji S. Shinde
                  AGP for Respondents No. 1 to 4 : Mr. A. R. Kale
                                        ...
                                  CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA
                                                    AND
                                               R. N. LADDHA, JJ.

                                    DATE    : 27th OCTOBER, 2021
PER COURT :-

.         We have heard, Mr. Shinde, the learned counsel for petitioners,

and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents/State in

respective writ petitions.

2. The petitioners are challenging the impugned communication,

whereby one step benefit granted to the petitioners is withdrawn.

3. It is not disputed that the petitioners are similarly situated persons

as petitioners in Writ Petition Stamp No.9543 of 2021 with other

connected writ petitions decided by this Court under order dated 14 th

July, 2021 at it's Principal Seat at Bombay.

2 998-WP-10969-21.odt

4. In the light of that, we follow the same course. For the reasons

recorded in the order dated 14.07.2021 in Writ Petition Stamp No. 9543

of 2021 with other connected writ petitions, we pass the same order.

5. The impugned action of recovery is accordingly withdrawn

forthwith. The petitioners have agreed to appear before the respondent

No. 3 on 15-11-2021 at 11.00 a.m. It is thus made clear that the

petitioners would be allowed to appear through an advocate or an

authorized representative before respondent No. 3. The respondent

No. 3 to pass a fresh order after hearing the petitioners through their

respective advocates or authorized representatives without being

influenced by the order of recovering the amount taken till date which is

set aside by this order and shall decide the matter in accordance with

law by interpreting the said G. R. dated 6 th August, 2002 in right

perspective and after taking into consideration the judgments of various

Courts referred to and relied upon by the petitioners in these writ

petitions. The petitioners would be at liberty to file written arguments

along with representation before the respondent No. 3.

6. The respondent No. 3 shall decide the representation of the

petitioners within six weeks from the date of first hearing. The order

that would be passed by respondent No. 3 shall be conveyed to the

petitioners within two weeks from the date of passing such order. If the

order that would be passed by the respondent No. 3 is adverse against

3 998-WP-10969-21.odt

the petitioners, no coercive steps would be taken against the petitioners

for a period of four weeks from the date of communication of the order.

7. The respondent No. 3 in the meanwhile shall continue to pay

salaries of the petitioners (one step pay scale) at the rate at which they

were being paid prior to the date of recovery of amount.

08. The writ petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.

 ( R. N. LADDHA )                           ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA )
      JUDGE                                          JUDGE




mtk