Bombay High Court
Rameshwar Mohanlalji Vikhar And ... vs State Of Maha. Thr. Secretary, ... on 20 January, 2022
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar, Pushpa V. Ganediwala
20-WP-3394-2021.odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3394 OF 2021
1. Rameshwar Mohanlalji Vikhar,
aged about 61 years, Occ. Retired,
R/o Sanket Colony, VMV Road,
District - Amravati.
2. Uttam Ramchandraji Raut,
aged about 59 years, Occ. Service,
R/o Vidarbha Colony, Tq. Morshi,
District - Amravati.
3. Dyaneshwar Motiram Yawale,
aged about 61 years, Occ. Retired,
R/o Shivaji Nagar, Warud,
District - Amravati.
4. Sau. Sunanda Sudhakarrao Sao,
aged about 58 years, Occ. Retired,
R/o Yashoda Nagar 6o.1, near Andeshwar Mandir,
District - Amravati.
5. Dashrat Dagaji Prajapat,
aged about 58 years, Occ. Service,
R/o at Po. Talai, Tq. Dharni,
District - Amravati.
6. Prakash Vishwanath Borkar,
aged about 63 years, Occ. Retired,
R/o Pawan Nagar, New Town Badnera,
District - Amravati.
7. Mukund Abhimanji Gajbhiye,
aged about 55 years, Occ. Service,
R/o Urvashi Nagar, Kathora Road,
District - Amravati.
8. Ravindra Pundalikrao Chaware,
aged about 56 years, Occ. Service,
R/o Purva Layout Sainagar,
District - Amravati.
20-WP-3394-2021.odt 2
9. Sau. Pushpa Prakash Borkar,
aged about 63 years, Occ. Retired,
R/o Pawan Nagar, New Town Badnera,
District - Amravati.
10. Bapurao Zibalji Gedam,
aged about 63 years, Occ. Retired,
R/o Shrikrushna Nagar, Shivrajgaon Band,
Tq. Chandur Bazar, District - Amravati.
...PETITIONERS
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Rural Development and Water Conservation Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
School Education and Sports Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
3. Divisional Commissioner,
Amravati Division, Amravati,
Tq. and District - Amravati.
4. Zilla Parishad, Amravati,
through its Chief Executive Officer, Amravati,
Tq. and District - Amravati.
5. Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Amravati,
Tq. and District - Amravati.
...RESPONDENTS
Mr. A.R. Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mrs. N.P. Mehta, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Mr. S.S. Shinde, Advocate for respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
.....
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR AND
PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, JJ.
DATED : JANUARY 20, 2022.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, J.) :
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. The petitioners are the employees of Schools in
Zilla Parishad, Amravati, and have been selected as the District
Awardee Teachers in different years up to 2012. By way of the
present petition, the petitioners are seeking directions to grant
benefit of one additional increment to them with effect from
the date of their selection for District Teacher Award as per the
Government Circular dated 12/12/2000. Further directions are
sought to release the arrears of the said benefit to the
petitioners along with interest. That petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3
are seeking reimbursement of amount of advance increment,
which was recovered by respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
3. Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioners,
submitted that the issue involved in the present Writ Petition is
covered by the judgment passed by this Court in Writ Petition
No. 5419/2018 decided on 14/02/2019 (Sanjay Ramkrushan
Waghmare & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) and other
connected matters, wherein this Court followed the view taken
by the Aurangabad Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.
1954/2018 decided on 25/01/2019 that the Government
Resolution dated 04/09/2018 cannot be interpreted to be
issued with any retrospective effect. It is further held that the
petitioners are entitled to the benefit of grant of advance
increment in terms of the Government Circular dated
12/12/2000 from such dates as would be applicable to them
and determined to be so on merit of each of the individual
matter by the Zilla Parishads.
To the objection raised on behalf of the Zilla
Parishads that most of the petitioners approached this Court
belatedly, and therefore, if any benefit of Clause 12 of the
Government Circular dated 12/12/2000 is to be given, it
cannot be permitted to be conferred upon them for a period
which is more than three years computed in a reverse manner
from the date of filing of the petitions, this Court observed that
in that case, it would be for the authorities to take appropriate
decision on individual basis in the matter by taking into
consideration not only the judgment dated 05/04/2018 of this
Court in Writ Petition Nos. 8165/2017 and 8170/2017 but also
other applicable judgments as expeditiously as possible and
preferably within a period of six months.
4. We do not see any good ground to take a different
view in the matter. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed in terms
of the judgment dated 14/02/2019 in Writ Petition No.
5419/2018. Needless to state that in case, any recovery has
been affected by the Zilla Parishad, the amount recovered shall
be reimbursed to the respective petitioners within time frame
stipulated hereinabove.
ii. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with
no order as to costs.
(JUDGE) (JUDGE)
******
Sumit
Digitally signed bySUMIT CHETAN
AGRAWAL
Signing Date:21.01.2022 16:21
