Bombay High Court
Gopal Vasantrao Kulkarni vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 14 September, 2022
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil, Sandeep V. Marne
942 WP 6332 OF
2019+.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
906 WRIT PETITION NO.9411 OF 2021
NAVNATH RAMJI DHUMALE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Mathpati Shivkumar K.
AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 : Mrs. R.P. Gaur
...
942 WRIT PETITION NO.6332 OF 2019
GOPAL VASANTRAO KULKARNI
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Mathpati Shivkumar K.
AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 : Mrs. V. N. Patil-Jadhav
...
944 WRIT PETITION NO.8950 OF 2019
BALAJI PANDURANG TUREWALE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTA AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Mathpati Shivkumar K
AGP for Respondent Nos 1 to 4/State : Mrs. R.P. Gaur
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 : Mr. P.R. Tandale
...
947 WRIT PETITION NO.14231 OF 2019
WITH WP/14233/2019 WITH WP/14241/2019
KAVITA PANDURANG SURYWANSHI
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Mathpati Shivkumar K
AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 : Mr. A.S. Shinde
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 : Mr. P.R. Tandale
...
948 WRIT PETITION NO.14248 OF 2019
DATTATRY PURUSHOTTAM SHIRURE AND OTHERES
VERSUS
1/6
::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2022 05:37:49 :::
942 WP 6332 OF
2019+.odt
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Mathpati Shivkumar K.
AGP for Respondent Nos 1 to 4/State : Mrs. R.P. Gaur
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 : Mrs. V. N. Patil-Jadhav
...
960 WRIT PETITION NO.3121 OF 2021
BALAJI VINAYAK YELAPURE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Mathpati Shivkumar K.
AGP for Respondent Nos 1 to 4/State : Mr. S.B. Yawalkar
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 : Mr. P.R. Tandale
...
961 WRIT PETITION NO.3146 OF 2021
KAVITA DAGDUAPPA DADGE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Mathpati Shivkumar K.
AGP for Respondent Nos 1 to 4/State : Mr. S.B. Yawalkar
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 : Mr. P.R. Tandale
...
966 WRIT PETITION NO.9410 OF 2021
SACHIN KANTARAO BAWGE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Mathpati Shivkumar K
AGP for Respondent Nos 1 to 3/State : Mrs. R.P. Gaur
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 : Mr. P. R. Tandale
...
993 WRIT PETITION NO.3118 OF 2021
ASHOK BHAUSAHEB GADAKH AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Mathpati Shivkumar K
AGP for Respondent Nos 1 to 4/State : Mr. A.S. Shinde
Advocate for the Respondent No. 6 : Mr. A.D. Aghav
2/6
::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2022 05:37:49 :::
942 WP 6332 OF
2019+.odt
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &
SANDEEP V. MARNE, JJ.
DATE : 14.09.2022.
PER COURT : (PER : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)
We have heard both the sides.
2. These petitions are filed for grant of benefit of advance increments for
outstanding work.
3. 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 6 th Pay Commission regime from
01.10.2006 to 01.10.2015.
4. 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.
5. 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
942 WP 6332 OF
2019+.odt
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.
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 6 th 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
942 WP 6332 OF
2019+.odt
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."
6. Thus it is now a well settled position that the scheme of grant of
942 WP 6332 OF
2019+.odt
advance increments was discontinued for the first time by Government
Resolution dated 24.08.2017 and that such decision would operate only
prospectively.
7. We, therefore, dispose of the writ petitions by declaring that the
Government Resolution dated 24.08.2017 would apply prospectively. The
eligibility of each of the petitioners may be considered by the respondents
for grant of advance increments in accordance with the provisions of
Circular dated 14.12.2006 but shall not be rejected only on the ground of
issuance of the Government Resolution dated 24.08.2017. We do not
express any opinion about eligibility or otherwise of the petitioners in that
regard. In case, the petitioners are found eligible for grant of benefit of
advance increments, the consequential benefits be paid to the respective
petitioners within a period of eight weeks from today.
(SANDEEP V. MARNE J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)
mkd/-
