Bombay High Court
Waseem Farhat Khalil Farhat And ... vs State Of Maha. Thr. Secretary, ... on 24 January, 2023
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar, Vrushali V. Joshi
42-WP-94-21.odt- 1/13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.94 OF 2021
PETITIONERS :- 1. Waseem Farhat Khalil Farhat, aged 46
years, Occup. Service, R/o Kashkashan
Colony, Amravati, Dist.Amravati.
2. Krushna Laxmanrao Chichmalkar, aged
42 years, Occup. Service, R/o Arjun
Nagar, Amravati, Tq. And Dist.Amravati.
3. Mohammad Nisar Mohd. Khalil, aged 47
years, Occup. Service, r/o Mominpura,
Daryapur Dist.Amaravati.
4. Vinod Baliramsa Bijwe, aged 43 years,
occup. Service, R/o Meher Nagar,
Daryapur, Dist.Amaravati.
5. Dr.Vilas Pandurang Bansod, aged 41
years, Occup.Service, R/o Nandanwa
Nagar, Paratwada, Dist.Amaravati.
6. Chanda Sanjayrao Kadu, aged 53 years,
Occ.Service,r/o Radhekrushna Colony,
Morshi, Dist.Amaravati.
7. Bhagwant Baburaoji Gajbhiye aged 45
years, occup.-- R/o Multai Road, Warud,
Dist.Amaravati.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1. State of Maharashtra, through its
Secretary, Rural Development and Water
Conservation Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai 32.
Kavita
42-WP-94-21.odt- 2/13
2. State of Maharashtra through its
Secretary, School Education and Sports
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
3. Divisional Commissioner, Amravati,
Division, Amaravati, tq. And Dist.
Amaravati.
4. Zilla Parishad, Amaravati through its
chief Executive officer, Amaravati Tq.
And Dist. Amaravati.
5. Education Officer (Primary), Zilla
Parishad, Amaravati Tq. And
Dist.Amaravati.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.A.R.Deshpande, counsel for the petitioners.
Ms.S.S.Jachak, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Mr.S.M.Bhangde, counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 487 OF 2020
PETITIONERS :- 1. Arunkumar Yadorao Baghele, aged 48
years, Occup.Service, R/o Shriram Nagar,
Tumsar, Post Tumsar, Tah.Tumsar,
Dist.Bhandara.
2. Vijaykumar Bhadu Chachere, aged 42
years, Occup. Service, R/o C/o
K.A.Bhoyar, Gowardhan Nagar, Tumsar,
Tah.Tumsar, Dist.Bhandara
3. Manjusha Dhoman Bodele, aged 38
years, Occup. Service, r/o Behind
Ganesh Lawns, Plot No.11, Dewhadi
Road, Gowardhan Nagar, Tumsar, Tah.
Tumsar, Dist. Bhandara.
...VERSUS...
Kavita
42-WP-94-21.odt- 3/13
RESPONDENTS :- 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, Nagpur,
Division, Nagpur, tq. And Dist. Nagpur.
4. Zilla Parishad, Bhandara through its
Chief Executive Officer, Bhandara
Tq. And Dist. Bhandara.
5. Education Officer (Primary),Zilla
Parishad, Bhandara Tq. And
Dist.Bhandara.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.A.R.Deshpande, counsel for the petitioners.
Ms.S.S.Jachak, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Mr.Ratnakar Khobragade, counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : A.S.CHANDURKAR &
MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : 24/01/2023
COMMON J U D G M E N T (Per :Mrs. Vrushali V. Joshi, J.)
(1) Heard Mr. A.R. Deshpande, learned counsel for the
petitioners, Mrs.S.S. Jachak, learned Assistant Government
Pleader for the respondent nos.1 to 3, Mr. S.M. Bhangde, learned
counsel for the respondent nos.4 and 5 in Writ Petition No.94 of
2021 and Mr.A.R.Deshpande, counsel for the petitioners.
Kavita
42-WP-94-21.odt- 4/13
Ms.S.S.Jachak, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3. Mr.Ratnakar
Khobragade, counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5 in Writ Petition
No.487 of 2021.
(2) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Since
similar challenges arise in these writ petitions, they are decided
together by this common judgment.
(3) The petitioners in Writ Petition No.94 of 2021 are
employed as teachers in various schools run by Zilla Parishad,
Amravati. The petitioners in Writ Petition No.487 of 2021 are
similarly placed teachers teaching in Zilla Parishad Schools in
Bhandara district. By Circular dated 12.12.2000 issued by the
respondent no.1 scheme of honouring teachers with a district
Award was formulated. The selection was to be done by a District
Level Committee and the awards were to be given on 5 th
September of each year, being Teacher's Day with the consent of
the Divisional Commissioner as stipulated by Clause 12. As a
result the awardee teachers were getting an additional increment.
Kavita
42-WP-94-21.odt- 5/13
On 04.09.2018, the respondent no.1 issued another
Circular and decided to delete Clause 12 of the earlier Circular
dated 12.12.2000. As a result, the grant of such award was
discontinued. Each petitioner herein contends that he has been
selected by the district level committee prior to issuance of the
Circular dated 04.09.2018 but has been issued the recognition
certificate after 04.09.2018. Since the petitioners are not being
granted benefit of the additional increment they have challenged
the Circular dated 04.09.2018 issued by the respondent no.1
withdrawing the grant of additional increment granted to the
District Awardee Teachers. In the alternate, the petitioners seek a
declaration that the Circular dated 04.09.2018 cannot be the
basis for denying them the benefit of an additional increment as
their selection is prior to 04.09.2018. The petitioners thus claim
the additional increment as per Circular dated 12.12.2000 with
interest.
(4) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
contended that Clause 12 of Circular dated 12.12.2000 stipulates
that on selection for the award a teacher would be given an
additional increment which is independent of the yearly
increment. By issuing a Circular dated 04.09.2018, Clause 12 of
Kavita
42-WP-94-21.odt- 6/13
the Circular dated 12.12.2000, which pertains to grant of one
additional increment to the District Awardee Teachers, has been
deleted. The petitioners were selected by the District Level
Committee and felicitated as District Awardee Teachers on the
occasion of Teachers' day and the certificates were issued to them
accordingly. The procedure for selection of petitioners as District
Awardee Teachers was already completed prior to the issuance of
the Circular dated 04.09.2018 by the Zilla Parishads and
therefore, the names of the petitioners were also communicated to
the Divisional Commissioner for approval. The entire procedure
of selection of petitioners as District Awardee Teachers having
been completed before issuance of Circular dated 04.09.2018, the
said Circular would operate prospectively and could not be given
retrospective effect. Hence deletion of Clause 12 of the Circular
dated 12.12.2000 would not affect the entitlement of the
petitioners to receive the additional increment. The learned
counsel for the petitioners relied upon the Judgment of this Court
in Writ Petition No.5419 of 2018 (Sanjay Ramkrushan Waghmare
and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.) dated 14.02.2019 to
urge that Circular dated 04.09.2018 did not have any
retrospective effect. The names of petitioners as selected awardee
teachers is reflected in the communication dated 03.09.2020
Kavita
42-WP-94-21.odt- 7/13
issued by Zilla Parishad to the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati.
In it, Circular dated 12.12.2000 is specifically referred. It is thus
submitted that the Circular dated 04.09.2018 be declared illegal,
arbitrary and discriminatory and the respondents be directed to
release the arrears of said benefits to the petitioners along with
interest. The communication dated 23.07.2019 issued by
respondent No.5- in Writ Petition No.94 of 2021 is also sought to
be set aside.
(5) The learned counsel appearing for the Zilla Parishads
as well as the learned Assistant Government Pleader have opposed
the writ petitions. It is submitted that the Zilla Parishad merely
recommends the name of teachers who are eligible to receive the
award. This is done by the Committee as constituted. Only after
the names are approved by the Divisional Commissioner is the
selection final. The approval of the Divisional Commissioner in
both writ petitions is after 04.09.2018 and hence till the names
are approved, the selection of the teachers is not final. Hence the
petitioners were not entitled to the reliefs as prayed for. The
learned counsel for Zilla Parishad, Bhandara relied upon the
decision in the case of Sethi Auto Service Station and another Vs.
Kavita
42-WP-94-21.odt- 8/13
Delhi Development Authority and ors. reported in (2009) 1 SCC
180 to substantiate his contention.
(6) The facts on record indicate that insofar as the
petitioners employed with Zilla Parishad Amravati are concerned
the Selection Committee in its meeting held on 27.08.2018
recommended the names of teachers found eligible for the district
award. On 03.09.2018 it directed the felicitation of such teachers
to be done on 05.09.2018 with the permission of the Divisional
Commissioner. The approval by the Divisional Commissioner is
dated 05.10.2018.
Insofar as Zilla Parishad Bhandara is concerned, the
meeting of the Selection Committee was held on 24.08.2018 and
names of teachers entitled to receive the award were
recommended. The administrative approval to the expenditure
towards the award was given by the Divisional Commissioner on
31.08.2018. The felicitation of the awardee teachers and
distribution of certificates took place on 05.09.2018. It is thus
clear that in both the writ petitions the selection and
recommendation of the petitioners to receive the award as per
Clause 12 of the Circular dated 12.12.2000 is prior to 04.09.2018
Kavita
42-WP-94-21.odt- 9/13
and the actual distribution of the certificates is after 04.09.2018 as
the approval by the Divisional Commissioner is after 04.09.2018.
In these facts, the entitlement of the petitioners would have to be
considered.
(7) Perusal of the Circular dated 12.12.2000 indicates
that the initial selection of eligible teachers to receive the award is
by the committee constituted at the level of the Zilla Parishad.
The names of the teachers eligible are recommended by the eight
member committee to the Divisional Commissioner and on his
approval the award is conferred. The fact that the award has to
be given on the 5th September of each year which is also called
'Teachers Day' is a relevant aspect. If the teachers entitled to
receive the award have to be identified by the committee to enable
such teachers to receive the award on 5 th September, it goes
without saying that such exercise of identification would be
required to be undertaken much prior to that date. For some
years, the award has been given on 5 th September or even
thereafter. Circular dated 04.09.2018 proceeds to delete Clause
12 of the Circular dated 12.12.2000. The object thereof is clear
that from 04.09.2018 and onwards the committee would cease to
identify eligible teachers for such award. This would not mean
Kavita
42-WP-94-21.odt- 10/13
that those teachers identified for receiving such award would not
receive it in view of Circular dated 04.09.2018. Taking such view
would result in giving retrospective effect to the said Circular.
That does not appear to be the intention of the Circular and this
has been held in Writ Petition No.1954 of 2018 decided at the
Aurangabad Bench on 25.01.2019.
In was urged that since approval by the Divisional
Commissioner was given after 04.09.2018 the concerned teachers
would not get benefit of Clause 12 of the Circular dated
12.12.2000. It must be noted that selection of eligible teachers is
an important step for being eligible to receive the award. Unless a
teacher is selected by the Committee his name cannot be
considered by the Divisional Commissioner. Hence, once a name
recommended by the Committee at the Zilla Parishad level is
approved by the Divisional Commissioner such approval would
relate back to the date of selection/identification of such teacher
by the Committee. If such selection/identification of a teacher for
receiving the award is prior to 04.09.2018 then there is no reason
to deprive the teacher of such award only on the ground that the
Divisional Commissioner has approved his name after 04.09.2018.
The reliance placed on the decision in Sethi Auto Service Station
Kavita
42-WP-94-21.odt- 11/13
and another Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors. (Supra) is
clearly misplaced since reliance therein was placed on notings in
the files to sustain a claim based on legitimate expectation. In any
event if the Divisional Commissioner does not approve the name
of any teacher selected to receive the award there would be no
question of such teacher receiving the award even if his name is
recommended by the Committee. But a teacher whose name is
recommended by the Committee prior to 04.09.2018 cannot be
deprived of such award only on the ground that the Divisional
Commissioner has approved the name after 04.09.2018.
(8) Though by the Government Resolution, Clause 12
of the Government Circular dated 12.12.2000 has been deleted,
the deletion would take effect from 04.09.2018 and would not
adversely affect the claims of the eligible District Awardee
Teachers for grant of additional increment in addition to their
entitlements as regard their regular increments. The Circular was
issued on 04.09.2018 and the certificates were given on
28.11.2018, the names of the awardees were forwarded for the
approval of the additional increment prior to 04.09.2018. Merely,
because the approval to the selection of teachers as District
Awardee Teachers has been granted on 28.11.2018 i.e. after
Kavita
42-WP-94-21.odt- 12/13
04.09.2018, it does not and cannot disentitle the petitioners from
getting one additional increment. Getting belated approval to the
selection of petitioners from the Divisional Commissioner, cannot
at all be the ground to deny the benefits of one additional
increment. The selection of petitioners as District Awardee
Teachers has made prior to the issuance of Circular dated
04.09.2018. The facts show that it is an award conferred upon
them and it is therefore, in addition to regular normal increments.
The Government Resolution dated 24.08.2017 does not speak
about any incentives conferred upon the teacher as an award. We
are therefore, not in a position to accept the submissions made by
the learned Assistant Government Pleader and learned counsel for
the respective Zilla Parishads. The increments additionally granted
ought to have been continued and its benefits should have been
received by the District Awardee Teachers till their
superannuation. So we are of the view that all these petitioners
are also entitled to have the benefit of grant of advance increment
in terms of the Government Circular dated 12.12.2000.
(9) In view of above, we are inclined to allow the writ
petitions. We direct the respective Zilla Parishads to continue to
honour the teachers by granting them benefit of the additional
Kavita
42-WP-94-21.odt- 13/13
increment under Clause 12 of the Circular dated 12.12.2000. It is
held that Circular dated 04.09.2018 would not affect the claim of
the petitioners to receive one additional increment since their
selection/recommendation to receive the award is prior to
04.09.2018. The benefits accordingly be released within a period
of three months from today.
(10) Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no
order as to costs.
(MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J) (A.S.CHANDURKAR, J)
Signed By:KAVITA PRAVIN
Kavita
TAYADE
P. A.
Signing Date:24.01.2023 15:01
