Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... vs Shri Shivaji S Suryawanshi on 5 March, 2024
Author: A.S. Chandurkar
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
2024:BHC-AS:12331-DB
RAMESHWAR
LAXMAN
DILWALE 3-WP-2577-24.doc Rameshwar Dilwale
Digitally signed IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
by RAMESHWAR
LAXMAN CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
DILWALE
Date: 2024.03.14
14:07:25 +0530 WRIT PETITION NO.2577 OF 2024
The State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Principal Secretary
Rural Development Department .. Petitioner
Vs.
Shivaji S. Suryawanshi and Others .. Respondents
...
Mrs. Reena A. Salunkhe, AGP for petitioner-State.
Mr. Om M. Lonkar for Respondent Nos.1 & 3.
...
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR &
JITENDRA JAIN, JJ
DATE : 5th MARCH 2024.
P.C. :
1. Heard. The challenge raised in this writ petition is to the judgment
of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 26/04/2023 by which
the Original Application preferred by the respondents seeking benefit of
the Assured Career Progression Scheme-ACP Scheme has been allowed
and the communication dated 06/06/2018 denying such benefit has been
set aside.
2. Each petitioner after having joined services in the year 1983-1987
came to be promoted on ad-hoc basis on 22/08/1995. Subsequently,
orders of regular promotion scheme to be issued on 01/01/2000-
01/01/2001. The respondents claim benefit under the ACP Scheme from
2007 by contending that they had worked on the promotional post,
though on ad-hoc basis, from 1995 and on completion of 12 years service
3-WP-2577-24.doc Rameshwar Dilwale
they were entitled for benefit under the ACP scheme. The representations
preferred by them were rejected on 06/06/2018 on the ground that
Government Resolution dated 07/10/2016 was made applicable only to
Group-C employees while the respondents were Group-A employees. The
learned Member of the Tribunal while deciding the Original Application
found that the respondents could not be denied the benefit of the ad-hoc
service rendered by them in view of the judgment of this Court in Writ
Petition No.9051 of 2013 (The State of Maharashtra Vs. Smt. Meena A.
Kuwalekar) alongwith connected writ petitions decided on 28/04/2016.
It was further found that the benefit under the ACP Scheme was made
applicable to government servants in the pay scale of Rs.8,000-13,500/-
that was corresponding to the pay scale of Rs. 15,600-39,100/-. On this
basis and by referring to the Government Resolutions dated 20/07/2007
and 01/04/2010 the Original Application was allowed.
3. We have heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the
petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. We find that
insofar as the services rendered by the respondents from 22/08/1995 by
virtue of ad-hoc promotion were liable to be taken into consideration for
entitlement under the ACP Scheme. The Tribunal was justified in relying
upon the decision in the case of Meena A. Kuwalekar (supra) wherein it
was held that benefit of ad-hoc service would be available in such
contingency. It is also found that by virtue of the Government Resolutions
3-WP-2577-24.doc Rameshwar Dilwale
dated 20/07/2001 and 01/04/2010 the benefit under the ACP Scheme
was made applicable up to the pay scale of Rs.15,600-39,100/- which was
the pay-scale of the respondents. Since the respondents were found
entitled to the said pay-scale under the said Government Resolutions, the
Tribunal has held that they could not be denied the benefit under the ACP
Scheme in view of the Government Resolution dated 07/10/2016. We
find that this has been the consistent view taken by the Tribunal in various
proceedings before it including Original Application No.1090 of 2017
(Shri Milind Mahadeo Sawant & Ors. Vs. The Joint Director, Technical
Education & Ors.) decided on 19/11/2018.
4. Though the learned Assistant Government Pleader sought to rely
upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the State of Maharashtra and
another Vs. Madhukar Antu Patil and another - Civil Appeal No.1985 of
2022 decided on 21/03/2022, we find that the ratio of the said decision
cannot be applied to the case in hand in view of the facts involved.
5. For aforesaid reasons, we do not find that the order passed by the
Tribunal suffers from any jurisdictional error for this Court to interfere in
exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition therefore stands dismissed
with no order as to costs.
[ JITENDRA JAIN, J] [A.S. CHANDURKAR, J. ]
