Bombay High Court
Manda Bhausaheb Sonawane vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 30 January, 2024
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge
2024:BHC-AUG:2441-DB
947-WP-1198-2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1198 OF 2024
MANDA BHAUSAHEB SONAWANE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
....
Mr. D. R. Irale Patil, Advocate for Petitioner
Mr. R. S. Wani, AGP for Respondent No.1
Mr. V. C. Patil, Advocate h/f Mr. U. B. Bondar, Advocate for
Respondent Nos. 2 to 4
....
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND
Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
DATE : 30.01.2024
PER COURT :-
1. The Petitioner has put forth prayer clauses (B) and
(B-1) as under:-
"(B) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass necessary
order and quash and set aside the revised pay fixation done
order PKK/Jarandi/Est./KV/2019 dtd--/--/2019 by the
respondent No.4 duly approved by the respondent No.3
under order dated 17.11.2023 while processing pension
paper to the finance department and proposed recovery of
Rs.6,30,457/- payable from the pensionary benefit and
direct respondents to refund the said amount with interest.
(B-1) Quashing and setting aside the revised pay fixation
done by the respondent No.4 under order
1 of 4
(( 2 )) 947-WP-1198-2024
PKK/Jarandi/Est./KV/2019 dated --/--/2019 and order dated
17.11.2023 passed by respondent No.3 and proposed recovery
of Rs.6,30,457/- from the pensionary benefit and further the
Hon'ble Court may be pleased to restore the original position of
the pay scale already granted under 5 th pay commission and the
benefit of pay scale admissible under time bound promotional
pay scale as contemplated under G. R. dated 08.06.1995. "
2. The Petitioner was appointed as an Auxiliary Nurse and
Midwife (ANM) with the Zilla Parishad on 26.02.1986. She was
extended the benefit of the first 'time bound' pay scale under the
Government Resolution dated 08.06.1995. She completed her Lady
Health Visitor (LHV) training on 19.12.2007 and was placed in the
pay scale of Rs.4000 - 6000, w.e.f. 08.06.1995.
3. Subsequently, the new pay scale was withdrawn and this
was a result of a common action, which was challenged before this
Court at the Nagpur Bench in Writ Petition No.2258/1993 and a 'stay'
was granted. By the judgment dated 28.07.2009, Writ Petition
No.2258/1993 (Maharashtra Zilla Parishad Nurses Sanghatana Vs.
The State of Maharashtra and another ) was allowed and it was held
that the LHV cannot be given the benefit of the ANM.
4. The present Petitioner is identically placed with the
Petitioner Ulka Ratnakar Bansode in Writ Petition No.11395 of 2021.
2 of 4
(( 3 )) 947-WP-1198-2024
By an order dated 01.09.2023, we have concluded that the
undertaking extracted from the retiring employee, at the stroke of
retirement or after retirement, is not to be considered for the reason
that the said undertaking apparently is extracted when the employee
is about to retire and has no bargaining power. We have, therefore,
concluded in Ulka Ratnakar Bansode (supra) that the recovered
amount should be returned to the Petitioner along with the interest at
the rate of 6% p.a.
5. The Petitioner retired on 31.05.2023. An undertaking
was extracted from her on 09.11.2023, which is after almost six
months of her superannuation. The Petitioner relies upon a judgment
delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagwan Shukla Vs.
Union of India and others - AIR 1994 SCC 2480, concluding that the
pay scale cannot be reduced or altered to the prejudice of the
employee without affording an opportunity of hearing to him.
Apparently, in the present case, an opportunity of hearing was not
granted to the Petitioner.
6. In the light of the above, this Petition is partly allowed.
The impugned order dated 17.11.2023 would stand quashed and set
aside.
3 of 4
(( 4 )) 947-WP-1198-2024
7. We permit the Respondent Zilla Parishad to issue a notice
to this Petitioner, giving her at least 15 days time to reply. The
Petitioner shall tender her written explanation /submissions within
the said period. Thereafter, the Zilla Parishad would pass a reasoned
order by considering the entire record available. If an adverse order
is passed in terms of revising the pay fixation, the Petitioner would be
at liberty to assail the same by resorting to a remedy as is permissible
in law.
[ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ] [ RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ]
SMS
4 of 4
