Bombay High Court
Dr. Anita D/O Ravikar Mohril @ Dr. ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 20 August, 2022
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar, Urmila Sachin Phalke
49-WP-2406-20.odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 2406 of 2020
Dr.Anita d/o Ravikar Mohril @ Dr. Asmita w/o Sunil Pathak(After marriage)
Vs.
State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Mantralaya, Mumbai and
anr.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order
Coram, appearances, Court's Orders
or directions and Registrar's order
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri S.A.Mohta, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri A. M. Kadukar, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.1.
Shri S.V. Sohoni, Advocate for respondent no.2.
CORAM :- A.S.CHANDURKAR AND URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, JJ.
DATE :- AUGUST 20, 2022
Shri S. A. Mohta learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner alongwith six others had made a
request to the Municipal Corporation to grant them benefit of the
recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission pursuant to
resolutions passed by the Municipal Corporation. He submits that
insofar as applicant nos. 1, 3 and 4 are concerned, they have filed
Writ Petition Nos. 436/2015, 435/2015 and 437/2015. The said
writ petitions were admitted on 04.12.2015 and the following order
has been passed:
"Heard.
Shri Sohoni, the learned counsel for the
respondent-Corporation states that even if the
petitioner is held to be entitled to the benefits of
the Fifth Pay Commission Recommendations and
the cause of action is continuous, the petitioner
could be entitled to arrears of the difference of
salary only for a period of three years preceding
the date of filing of the writ petition. The learned
counsel for the respondent-Corporation has relied
on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the cases of Union of India and others v. Tarsem
Singh (reported in 2008 (8) SCC 648); Jai Dev
Gupta v. State of H.P. and another (reported in
1997 (11) SCC 13 and Shiv Dass v. Union of India
and others (reported in 2007(9) SCC 274) in this
regard.
In the facts of the case, we issue Rule.
Since the petitioner has made out a
prima facie case by pointing out Annexure-6 and 7
that the Corporation has given the benefits of the
Fifth Pay Commission Recommendations, we direct
the respondent-Corporation to give similar benefits
to the petitioner during the pendency of the writ
petition. The respondent-Corporation may pass an
appropriate order granting the benefits of the Fifth
Pay Commission Recommendations to the
petitioner within a period of one month.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader
waives notice on behalf of respondent no.1.
Learned counsel Shri S.V. Sohoni, waives
notice for respondent no.2."
Considering the fact that the petitioner is also similarly situated as
of those applicants, Rule. The interim directions issued in the aforesaid writ
petition are also issued in the present writ petition.
Shri A.M.Kadukar, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives
notice of hearing on behalf of respondent no.1 and Shri S.V. Sohoni, learned
counsel waives notice of hearing on behalf of respondent no.2.
To be heard alongwith Writ Petition Nos. 435/2015, 436/2015,
and 437/2015.
( URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) (A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.)
Andurkar..
Digitally Signed byJAYANT S
ANDURKAR
Personal Assistant
Signing Date:
22.08.2022 10:38
