Bombay High Court
Murlidhar Rustumrao Deshmukh vs Principal Secretary Law And ... on 6 October, 2022
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil, Sandeep V. Marne
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
970 WRIT PETITION NO.8908 OF 2019
MURLIDHAR RUSTUMRAO DESHMUKH
VERSUS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LAW AND JUDICIARY
DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. V.P. Raje h/f. Mr. Girish S. Rane
AGP for Respondent / State : Mrs. M.A. Deshpande
Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 & 4 : Mr. R.J. Godbole
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &
SANDEEP V. MARNE, JJ.
DATE : 06-10-2022
ORDER ORDER (PER SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) :
. The petitioner is working on the post of Chobdar in this
Court. He is aggrieved by the communication dated 20.09.2017 by
which his representation for stoppage of recovery of payment made
towards advance increments has been rejected in light of Government
Resolutions dated 03.07.2009 and 24.08.2017. The petitioner has
prayed for setting aside the communications dated 20.09.2017 and
01.07.2019 with a further prayer to restore the advance increments
granted in his favour with effect from 01.10.2006.
2. The issue is no more res integra. While dealing with the
similar case pertaining to judicial / non-judicial staff, working in
various courts, we have passed the following order on 06.09.2022 in
Writ Petition No.9591 of 2019 and other connected petitions, which is
reproduced below:
'The petitioners are judicial/non-judicial staff
working in various Courts and have filed petitions for
grant/retention of advance increment for outstanding work.
Some of the petitioners are granted such advance
increments, but the same is attempted to be recovered.
Whereas, some of the petitioners are yet to be granted
such advance increments.
2. The dispute has essentially arisen on
account of Government Resolution dated 24.08.2017, by
which a decision was taken not to grant the benefit of
advance increments during 6th Pay Commission regime
from 01.10.2006 to 01.10.2015.
3. In various judgments of this Court it was
repeatedly held that the Government Resolution
dated 24.08.2017 would operate prospectively and
would not have the effect of retrospective denial of advance
increments prior to issuance thereof. The State Government
and various Zilla Parishad filed Review Petitions seeking
review of various orders passed by this Court. It was inter
alia sought to be contended in the said review
petitions that even though the ultimate decision for
stoppage of the scheme for advance increments might have
been taken on 24.08.2017, it was earlier directed by way
of Circular dated 03.07.2009 to undertake the exercise of
pay fixation in 6th Pay Commission Pay Scales without
taking into consideration the advance increments.
4. We had the occasion to consider the entire issue
in detail while deciding such Review Petitions. By
judgment and order dated 30.08.2022, we have rejected
the Review Petitions after considering all the objections
raised by the State Government and Zilla Parishads. We
have held that no specific instructions were issued before
24.08.2017 for discontinuation of the scheme of advance
increments. We reproduce paragraph nos.12 to 15 of the
judgment and order dated 30.08.2022 passed in Review
Application (Civil) No.170 of 2022 in Writ Petition
No.13760 of 2019 (The State of Maharashtra and Anr.
Vs. Rupchand S/o. Narayan Shinde and Ors.):
'12. After having heard learned Counsels at length,
we find that the review applicants have not been able to
point out any specific instructions issued prior to
24.08.2017 /04.09.2018 for discontinuation of the schemes
for grant of advance increments. Government Resolution
dated 27.02.2009 and Circular dated 03.07.2009 do not
indicate that any final decision was taken for
discontinuation of schemes for advance increments. We
proceed to examine the Government Resolution dated
27.02.2009 and Circular dated 03.07.2009 in detail.
13. Government Resolution dated 27.02.2009
came to be issued by the State Government
essentially for conveying the decision of the State
Government about acceptance or otherwise of various
recommendations made by the Hakim Committee
constituted for implementation of recommendations of
the 6th Central Pay Commission. In Annexure to the said
Government Resolution, each recommendation and
decision of the State Government thereon have been
enumerated. So far as the scheme for advance increment is
concerned, the same is to be found at serial number 27 of
the Annexure (para 3.24 of Committees Report). In that
paragraph, the Committee recommended that for
employees / Officers rendering outstanding service,
increment @ 4% be awarded instead of 3% and such
increment be granted once in 5 years. It was further
recommended that since increment at higher rate was being
granted, the then existing scheme for grant of one or two
advance increments be discontinued. However, in the
column 'Decision of State Government' against para
3.24, remark is made stating that 'separate action would
be taken by General Administration Department'. As
against various other recommendations, the remark
'accepted' has been made. The recommendation made in
para 3.24 by the Hakim Committee was not accepted at
least on the date of issuance of Government Resolution
dated 27.02.2009 and General Administration
Department was to take a decision thereon separately.
Thus, it cannot be inferred that any specific decision was
taken by the State Government on 27.02.2009 for
discontinuation of scheme for grant of advance increment.
Therefore, we do not find that the orders under review
need to be disturbed on the basis of the Government
Resolution dated 27.02.2009.
14. Now, we come to the Circular dated 03.07.2009.
By the said Circular, it was directed that the issue of
discontinuation of scheme for grant of advance increment
was under consideration with the State Government
and that some time was required for taking final decision.
Therefore, it was further directed that temporarily
the pay fixation of the employees in the 6 th Pay
Commission scales be made without considering the
advance increments. Thus, the Circular dated 03.07.2009
was clearly issued as a temporary measure. The said
circular did not communicate any decision to the effect that
the State Government discontinued the scheme for grant of
advance increments. Therefore, we find that the reliance of
Mr. Dixit on the Circular dated 03.07.2009 is again of no
avail.
15. We have carefully gone through the
Government Resolution dated 24.08.2017 and Circular
dated 04.09.2018. By the Government Resolution dated
24.08.2017, final decision came to be taken in respect of
recommendation made by the Hakim Committee in para
3.24 of its report directing that during the period
from 01.10.2006 to 01.10.2015 when revised pay scales
as per 6th Pay Commission were admissible, the benefit
of advance increments should not be granted. Thus,
the final decision on para 3.24 of Committees Report was
taken by the State Government only on 24.08.2017.
However, instead of simply directing that the scheme
for grant of advance increments is discontinued, the State
Government sought to give retrospective effect to its
decision by directing that the benefit of such advance
increments be not given during the period from
01.10.2006 to 01.10.2015. While issuing such orders
having retrospective effect, the State Government lost sight
of the fact that several employees were already granted
the benefit of advance increments during the
relevant period. As we have observed earlier, the
deliberations for discontinuation of the scheme started only
on 27.02.2009 / 03.07.2009 and prior to that, admittedly,
the issue of discontinuation of the scheme for grant of
advance increment was not even under consideration. The
instructions for temporarily doing pay fixation without
advance increments were issued on 03.07.2009. This
means that several employees must have already been
granted advance increments during the period from
01.10.2006 to 03.07.2009. We, therefore, fail to
comprehend as to how the State Government could have
issued directions on 24.08.2017 that the benefit of
advance increments should not be granted from
01.10.2006 onwards. Even in respect of employees
becoming eligible for grant of advance increments
after 27.02.2009, we do not find any error in the view
taken by this Court that the Government Resolution
dated 27.08.2017 would only have prospective effect.'
5. Thus it is now a well settled position that the
scheme of grant of advance increments was discontinued
for the first time by Government Resolution dated
24.08.2017 and that such decision would operate only
prospectively.
6. We, therefore, dispose of the petitions by
declaring that the Government Resolution dated
24.08.2017 would apply prospectively. Petitioners, who
became due and eligible for grant of advance increments
for outstanding work prior to 24.08.2017, would be
entitled to grant of the same. Such of the petitioners who
are yet to be granted the actual benefits of advance
increments may be granted such benefits. In respect of
those petitioners who were already granted advance
increments and in respect of whom recoveries have been
effected or sought to be effected, such action of recovery is
set aside. Consequential benefits be paid to respective
petitioners within a period of eight weeks from today.'
3. In view of the above, we pass the following order:
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is allowed by setting set aside the impugned
communications.
(ii) The advance increments granted in favour of the petitioner
shall stand restored with all consequential reliefs.
(iii) If any recoveries have been made from the petitioner, the
amount shall be refunded to him within a period of four months from
today.
( SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. ) ( MANGESH S. PATIL, J. )
GGP
