Bombay High Court
Baburao Kisan Sonune vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ... on 30 July, 2025
Author: M.S.Jawalkar
Bench: M.S.Jawalkar
1/7 wp-2873-24.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 2873 OF 2024
Baburao Kisan Sonune,
Age @ 74 years, Occ. Retired,
R/o Post Sakali (Bk), Tq. & Dist.
Buldhana ...Petitioner
// VERSUS //
1. The State of Maharashtra through its
Secretary for Rural Development
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Zilla Parishad, Buldhana, through
its Chief Executive Officer, Buldhana,
Dist. Buldhana ... Respondents
Shri S.M.Vaishnav, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri G.S.Umale, AGP for the respondent/State.
Ms. Vaishali, Advocate for the respondent no. 2.
CORAM : SMT. M.S.JAWALKAR &
PRAVIN S. PATIL, JJ.
Reserved on : 25th JULY, 2025.
Pronounced on : 30th JULY, 2025.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.)
Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by consent of the parties.
2. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the decision of
Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) dated 1 st June, 2022, by
which it is decided not to grant second benefit of time bound
Sknair
2/7 wp-2873-24.odt
promotional scheme to the petitioner. As such, the petitioner is seeking
direction to the respondents to grant benefit of the same with effect from
1st October, 2006, by upgrading regular salary as well as regular monthly
pension with arrears of difference of regular pension and other terminal
benefits.
3. In brief, the case of the petitioner is that, he being qualified
for the post of Junior Assistant, by following due procedure of law came
to be appointed as a Junior Assistant in Zilla Parishad, Buldhana on 11 th
April, 1972.
4. That first time bound promotion pay scale benefit was
granted to the petitioner when he was holding the post of Senior Clerk
w.e.f 1st October, 1994. It is further seen that on 24 th October, 2003,
petitioner was promoted against the post of Senior Assistant and
superannuated on 30th June, 2008.
5. After the superannuation of the petitioner, the State of
Maharashtra had issued the Government Resolution dated 1 st April, 2010
thereby granted the scheme of time bound promotional pay scale.
Accordingly, it is decided to grant second benefit of time bound
Sknair
3/7 wp-2873-24.odt
promotional pay scale on completion of 24 years of service and scheme is
made applicable with effect from 1st October, 2006.
6. In pursuance of the policy framed by the State Government,
petitioner made representation dated 11th October, 2021 to the
respondent no.2 for grant of benefit of second time bound promotional
pay scale.
7. It is stated by the petitioner that in the month of January,
2024, he came to know about the decision of Departmental Promotion
Committee (DPC) and therefore applied for copy of the minutes of
meeting under Right to Information Act. After receipt of the said
minutes of the meeting, it became clear to petitioner that second benefit
of time bound promotional pay scale was not granted to the petitioner
and kept pending for the reason that confidential reports of the petitioner
are of average ranking.
8. As such, the petitioner is challenging the minutes of
Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) dated 1st June, 2022.
Sknair
4/7 wp-2873-24.odt
9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent - Zilla Parishad
raises preliminary objection by stating that petitioner has a statutory
remedy to prefer the appeal before the Divisional Commissioner under
the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad (Disciplinary Appeal) Rules, 1964.
Hence, present petition is not tenable and petitioner be directed to file
statutory appeal as per the said Rules.
10. On merits, it is the submission of the respondents that the
decision of Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) cannot be
faulted because on the basis of record made available before them, the
decision is taken and rightly withheld the benefits of petitioner in view of
his average ranking in the department on the basis of confidential reports.
11. We have heard both the counsel at length and considered the
documents available on record.
12. It is seen from the record that petitioner has categorically
stated in his petition that during his service tenure, he was not in receipt
of any adverse confidential reports nor an opportunity was given to the
petitioner to improve the same. Respondent no.2 fairly admitted that
there is no communication of adverse confidential reports to the
Sknair
5/7 wp-2873-24.odt
petitioner during his service tenure. Learned counsel for the petitioner in
the background of this factual position has relied upon the judgment
delivered by this Court in Writ Petition No. 6631 of 2019 (Achyutrao S/o
Bhaurao Raut Vs. State of Maharashtra and others) , wherein this Court
has recorded the specific findings in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the judgment,
the same is reproduced as under:
"08] We have perused the guidelines issued by the Government for
writing confidential reports relied by the petitioner. Guideline no.40
stipulates that all adverse remarks in the confidential reports shall be
communicated through registered post with acknowledgment and in
case of hand delivery, the acknowledgement is to be taken from the
concerned employee and those acknowledgments should be preserved.
Guideline no.52 contemplates that if adverse remarks are not
communicated, same cannot be used against the employee. Despite
giving chance to respondent No.2, nothing has been produced on
record to show that the adverse remarks mentioned in the confidential
reports of the year 1990 to 1995 were communicated to the petitioner.
In such circumstances, it has to be presumed that those adverse remarks
were never communicated to the petitioner. On this set of facts, in view
of the requirement of the aforesaid Government Resolution dated
08/06/1995, it is clear that those adverse remarks could not have been
taken into account to deny to the petitioner the benefit of said scheme
with effect from 01/10/1994. Thus, it is apparent that the petitioner is
entitled to the benefit of said scheme from 01/10/1994 and not from
01/10/2001.
09] In the case of Dr. Sukhdeo Chapale (supra) relied by the
petitioner, similarly situated person was granted such benefit from
01/10/1994. Also, in the case of Dr. Sabita Biswas (supra), in paragraph
4 of the judgment, this Court has held that in view of the requirement
of Government Resolution dated 01/02/1996, it is clear that those
Sknair
6/7 wp-2873-24.odt
adverse remarks could not have been taken into account to deny benefit
of time bound promotion to the petitioner. Thus, we hold that the
action of the respondent No.2 not extending the benefit of said scheme
to the petitioner from 01/10/1994 is erroneous and arbitrary, therefore,
does not stand. As far as aspect of the delay in approaching the court is
concerned, the impugned communication is of 26/09/2018 and the
petition has been filed on 08/07/2019 i.e. within the reasonable time. In
view thereof, the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs as sought for except
the cost...."
13. In the light of above said factual as well as legal position, we
are of the considered opinion that findings recorded by the Departmental
Promotion Committee (DPC) in its meeting dated 1st June, 2022 to
withhold the second benefit of time bound promotion pay scale to the
petitioner is illegal and accordingly, we proceed to pass the following
order.
i. Writ petition is allowed.
ii. Respondents are directed to grant benefit of second time
bound promotional pay scale to the petitioner with effect from 1 st
October, 2006.
iii. It is made clear that, petitioner being superannuated on 31 st
March, 2010, the benefit of second part of Assured Progressive Scheme
Sknair
7/7 wp-2873-24.odt
will be applicable only for the purpose of retirement benefits, petitioner
will not be entitled for any arrears of backwages during this period.
No order as to costs.
[PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.] [SMT. M.S.JAWALKAR, J.]
Signed by: Mr. S.K. NAIR
Designation: PS To Honourable
Sknair Judge
Date: 31/07/2025 17:02:00
