Bombay High Court

Arjuna Shamrao Patil vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 October, 2024

Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge, M. M. Sathaye

2024:BHC-AS:42114-DB


                                                                   .. 1 ..            907-100-WP-10706-2022- 10296-2024


                                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                                  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                                       WRIT PETITION NO. 10706 OF 2024

                                     Arjuna Shamrao Patil & Ors.                       ...Petitioners
                                            Versus
                                     State of Maharashtra                              ...Respondent

                                                                   AND
                                                       WRIT PETITION NO.10296 OF 2024

                                     Satish Nana Barage & Ors.                         ...Petitioner
                                            Versus
                                     State of Maharashtra                              ...Respondents
                                                                             ...

                                     Mr. S.B. Talekar & Ms. Madhavi Ayyappan i/b. Talekar &
                                     Associates, Advocate for the Petitioner in both matters.

                                     Mr. M.M. Pabale, AGP, for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in both
                                     matters.

                                     Mr. Devidas Jadhav, Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 and 5 in
                                     both matters.
                                                                 ...

           Digitally signed
                                                               CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
           by PALLAVI
PALLAVI
MAHENDRA
           MAHENDRA
           WARGAONKAR
WARGAONKAR Date:
                                                                                &
           2024.10.21
           19:47:36
           +0530                                                       M.M. SATHAYE, JJ.

DATE :- 17th OCTOBER, 2024

ORAL FINAL ORDER (Per Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.) :-

1. The Petitioners in both these Petitions are admittedly

identically placed. An identical cause of action is raised. For Pallavi Wargaonkar, PS

.. 2 .. 907-100-WP-10706-2022- 10296-2024

reference, we are reproducing prayer clauses (B), (C) and (D), in

the first Petition, herein-under:-

"(B) To quash the Government Resolution dated 24.08.2017 issued by the General Administration Department (Exhibit "F"), by issuing writ of certiorari or any other other appropriate writ, order or direction, as the case may be.

(C) To quash the Government Resolution dated 15.12.2022 issued by the General Administration Department (Exhibit "M"), by issuing writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, as the case may be.

(D) To quash the order dated 19.12.2022 directing the heads of departments, Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur to grant benefits of advance increments as per the Government resolution dated 15.12.2022 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur (Exhibit "N"), by issuing writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order of direction, as the case may be."

2. Since this Court has dealt with hundreds of identical

matters, we requested the learned Advocate representing

Respondent Nos. 3 to 7 (Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran), to

cause his appearance. On request, he has appeared in this matter.

Pallavi Wargaonkar, PS

.. 3 .. 907-100-WP-10706-2022- 10296-2024

3. The dispute has essentially arisen on account of the

Government Resolution dated 24/08/2017, by which a decision

was taken, not to grant the benefit of advance increments during

the 6th Pay Commission regime, from 01/10/2006 to 01/10/2015.

4. In various judgments of this Court, it was

consistently held that the Government Resolution dated

24/08/2017, would operate prospectively and would not have the

effect of retrospective denial of advance increments. 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 a Circular dated

03/07/2009, to undertake the exercise of pay fixation as per the

6th Pay Commission Pay scales without taking into consideration

the advance increments.

5. By judgment and order dated 30/08/2022, this Court

has rejected the Review Petitions after considering all the

Pallavi Wargaonkar, PS

.. 4 .. 907-100-WP-10706-2022- 10296-2024

objections raised by the State Government. It was held that, no

specific instructions were issued before 24/08/2017 for

discontinuation of the scheme of advance increments. Paragraph

Nos.12 to 15 of the judgment and order dated 30/08/2022, passed

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.), read as under :-

"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 6th 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 Pallavi Wargaonkar, PS

.. 5 .. 907-100-WP-10706-2022- 10296-2024

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 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 6th 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.

Pallavi Wargaonkar, PS

.. 6 .. 907-100-WP-10706-2022- 10296-2024

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 Pallavi Wargaonkar, PS

.. 7 .. 907-100-WP-10706-2022- 10296-2024

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 advance increments was discontinued for the

first time by the Government Resolution, dated 24/08/2017 and

that, such decision would only operate prospectively.

7. These Writ Petitions are, therefore, disposed off with

the declaration that the Government Resolution dated

24/08/2017, would apply prospectively. The Petitioners in the

respective Petitions are held to be eligible for grant of advance

increments for outstanding work, prior to 24/08/2017. Since the

Petitioners are not claiming interest, the recovered amount shall

be paid to the Petitioners within a period of 45 days, failing

which, the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% from the