Bombay High Court
Rajendra Ramaji Dhawale And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 27 August, 2024
W.P. No.7187/2015
:: 1 ::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.7187 OF 2015
Rajendra s/o Ramaji Dhawale & Others ... Petitioners
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & Others ... Respondents
.......
Miss P.S. Talekar, Advocate for Petitioner
Shri A.B. Girase, Govt. Pleader for State
Shri Rajendra S. Deshmukh, Senior Counsel with
Shri Ajit B. Kadethankar, Shri Kunal Kale,
Shri Raman Dodiya, Advocates for respondent No.2.
.......
CORAM: DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. &
KISHORE C. SANT, J.
DATE: 27th AUGUST, 2024.
P.C. :
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned Government Pleader representing the State. The
Writ Petition concerns itself with certain discrepancies in the
pay-scales being drawn by the Stenographers working in the
District Judiciary in the State of Maharashtra.
2. Hon'ble Supreme Court, taking note of the
recommendations made by Shetty Commission, rendered a
judgment on 07/10/2009 and issued certain directions. One
:: 2 ::
of the directions issued was that the recommendations of
Shetty Commission shall be implemented w.e.f. 01/04/2003.
Apart from this, the Shetty Commission had also
recommended that in the States where the pay-scales
admissible to various categories of employees working in the
District Judiciary was higher than what was recommended by
Shetty Commission, the higher scale for any such State shall
be implemented.
3. To give effect to the recommendations of the
Shetty Commission in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court dated 7/10/2009, the State of Maharashtra
issued a Government Resolution dated 20/10/2011 which
clearly provided that the pay-scales mentioned therein shall
be applicable with effect from 01/04/2003 as directed by
Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, there were certain
discrepancies and the said Government Resolution was not in
tune with the recommendations of Shetty Commission at
least in one regard, that is to say, in respect of the pay-scales
admissible to different categories of Stenographers the Shetty
Commission had recommended that there has to be a Three-
Tier or Three-Grades of pay-scales which need to be made
available to the Stenographers working in the District
:: 3 ::
Judiciary, but the Government Resolution dated 20/10/2011
provided for Four Grades of pay-scales. After some
correspondence with the High Court, the said discrepancy
was removed by the State by issuing the Government
Resolution dated 15/09/2018 and in place of Four Grades of
pay-scales admissible to the Stenographers, the said
Government Resolution provided for three Grades of pay-
scales to be made available to the Stenographers working in
the District Judiciary in Maharashtra.
4. On an earlier occasion it was pointed out to the
Court that while removing the discrepancy which had
occurred in the Government Resolution dated 20/10/2011,
the State, though, had issued a fresh Government Resolution
on 15/09/2018, however, the Government Resolution is silent
as to with effect from which date the said pay-scales as
mentioned in the Government Resolution dated 15/09/2018,
will be made applicable.
5. Noticing the aforesaid, the Court passed an order
on 27/11/2018 directing the State to file an affidavit to justify
as to how the State is entitled to implement the Government
Resolution dated 15/09/2018 from the date of its issuance
:: 4 ::
and not with effect from 01/04/2003 as observed by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in its judgment dated 07/10/2009.
6. In response to the said order dated 27/11/2018
passed by the Court, the State has filed an affidavit-in-reply
dated 18/12/2018 wherein reliance has been placed on an
order passed by this Court on 31/01/2018 in Writ Petition
No.2134/2014 filed by Association of Personal Assistants,
Private Secretaries and Senior Private Secretaries, High
Court, Bombay, wherein it was observed by the Court that
fixation of pay-scale in the post of Private Secretary to be
revised by merging the Special Pay of Rs.400/-, will be
applicable with effect from 01/04/2005 i.e. the date from
which the posts were upgraded and the benefits accruing
thereof shall be paid to the petitioners as expeditiously as
possible.
7. From the said affidavit, it does not transpire as to
whether the order dated 31/01/2018 passed by this Court in
Writ Petition No.2134/2014 was passed in respect of a
subject relating to implementation of the recommendations
made by Shetty Commission in the light of the judgment
dated 07/10/2009 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. Prima
:: 5 ::
facie, the causes shown in the affidavit-in-reply dated
10/12/2018 do not appear to be tenable for the following
reasons :-
a) The subsequent Government Resolution dated
15/09/2018 cannot be said to be a decision of the
State Government independent of the
recommendations made by the Shetty Commission
and the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court
on 07/10/2009.
b) It is to be noted that the Government Resolution
dated 15/09/2018 was issued with a view to rectify
the defect in the earlier Government Resolution dated
20/10/2011 which was issued for the purposes of
giving effect to the recommendations of Shetty
Commission in view of judgment dated 07/10/2009
passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court and the direction
was to the effect that the Shetty Commission had
recommended Three-Grade pay-scales to be made
available to the Stenographers, whereas the
Government Resolution dated 20/10/2011 permitted
the Four-Grade pay-scales to the Stenographers. It is
thus clear that the Government Resolution dated
:: 6 ::
15/09/2018 was issued to rectify the said
discrepancy/ mistake/ error which had occurred in the
Government Resolution dated 20/10/2011 and this
Government Resolution dated 20/10/2011 was made
applicable with effect from 01/04/2003 which is the
date with effect from which, in terms of the judgment
dated 07/10/2009 the recommendations of the Shetty
Commission are to be given effect to. Hence, the
submission in the affidavit-in-reply that the provisions
of the Government Resolution dated 15/09/2018 will
be applicable with effect from the date of issuance of
the said Government Resolution is absolutely
untenable.
c) In any case, it is not denied by the State that the
Shetty Commission's recommendations are to be
made effective and implemented with effect from
01/04/2003 as directed by Hon'ble Supreme Court
and accordingly, giving effect to the Government
Resolution dated 15/09/2018 which has been issued
for the purposes of only removing the discrepancy in
the Government Resolution dated 20/10/2011,
therefore, implementing the Government Resolution
:: 7 ::
dated 15/09/2018 not with effect from 01/04/2003
but with effect from the date of issuance of
Government Resolution i.e. 15/09/2018, in our
opinion, does not bear any rationale.
8. At this juncture, learned Government Pleader
states that, Shetty Commission itself had recommended that
in the States where the pay-scale admissible to the
Stenographers were higher than what was recommended by
Shetty Commission, the higher pay-scale shall be
implemented and since in the State of Maharashtra the higher
pay-scales were admissible to the Stenographers in terms of
the recommendations of Sixth Pay Commission w.e.f.
01/01/2006, therefore, at the most, the Government
Resolution dated 15/09/2018 may be considered for being
implemented with effect from 01/01/2006.
9. In our opinion, the said submission also does not
bear any force for the reason that while issuing the
Government Resolution dated 15/09/2018 the State
Government was not considering implementation of
recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission, rather it was
considering implementation of the recommendations of
:: 8 ::
Shetty Commission in view of the judgment rendered by
Hon'ble Supreme Court on 7/10/2009 which in unequivocal
terms clearly provides that Shetty Commission's
recommendations are to be implemented with effect from
01/04/2003.
10. However, on the prayer made by learned
Government Pleader, we grant three weeks time to seek
clarification in respect of the observations made by the Court
in the preceding paragraphs of this order.
11. On completing his instructions, he shall accordingly
file an additional affidavit-in-reply within four weeks after
serving a copy thereof upon the learned counsel for the
petitioners.
12. Stand over to 24th September 2024. To be placed
high on board.
(KISHORE C. SANT, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)
fmp/-
