Bombay High Court
Sayed Shoukat Ali Osman Ali And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 6 September, 2022
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil, Sandeep V. Marne
(1) wp-9591-2019 & ors
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.9591 OF 2019
Sayed Shoukat Ali Osman Ali & Ors. ..Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9592 OF 2019
Ashok S/o Manikrao Khedkar & Ors. ..Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.11019 OF 2019
Rajendrakumar Vinayak Patil & Ors. ..Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.12866 OF 2019
Sudhir Khandu Potdar & Ors. ..Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9561 OF 2019
Vishnu S/o Chavdas Ingale & Ors. ..Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..Respondents
...
::: Uploaded on - 07/09/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2022 21:20:38 :::
(2) wp-9591-2019 & ors
Mr. S. B. Sontakke, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. S. B. Yawalkar, AGP for Respondents-State.
Dr. R. J. Godbole, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.15012 OF 2019
Ashok S/o Bhagwan Bagde ..Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.15013 OF 2019
Dnyaneshwar S/o Madhukar Sardeshmukh ..Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..Respondents
...
Mr. S. B. Sontakke, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. S. B. Yawalkar, AGP for Respondents-State.
Mr. A. B. Kadethankar, Advocate for Respondent
No.3.
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL AND
SANDEEP V. MARNE, JJ.
DATE : 06th SEPTEMBER 2022.
FINAL ORDER (Per Sandeep V. Marne, J.):-
1. 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.
(3) wp-9591-2019 & ors
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 Parishads
had 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
(4) wp-9591-2019 & ors
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
pass 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.35 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
details.
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
(5) wp-9591-2019 & ors
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
(6) wp-9591-2019 & ors
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
(7) wp-9591-2019 & ors
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.
(SANDEEP V. MARNE) (MANGESH S. PATIL)
JUDGE JUDGE
Devendra/September-2022
