Bombay High Court
Kanhu S/O Bhausaheb Katke vs The Union Of India (Through Its ... on 2 May, 2025
Author: A.S.Chandurkar
Bench: A.S.Chandurkar
2025:BHC-OS:7371-DB
1 WP-1733-2018 C1.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1733 OF 2018
Kanu Bhausaheb Katke
Age : 67 years
Occupation : (Pensioner)
R/o A-6, Konark Residency,
Opp. Kane No.6, North Main Road,
...Petitioner
Koregaon Park, Pune - 411001
Versus
SNEHA
NITIN 1. The Union of India
CHAVAN (through it's Principal Secretary)
Digitally signed by
SNEHA NITIN
Ministry of Labour and Employment,
CHAVAN
Date: 2025.05.03 New Delhi.
10:20:35 +0530
2. The Pay and Accounts Officer,
DG FASLI, CLI Building,
NS Mankikar Marg,
Sion, Mumbai - 22
3. The Senior Accounts Officer,
Pay and Accounts Officer,
CLI Building, NS Mankikar Marg,
Sion, Mumbai - 22
4. The Estate Manager,
3rd Floor, Pratishthan Bhavan,
101, MK Road, Mumbai - 20 ...Respondents
****
Mr. S.B. Talekar with Ms. Madhavi Ayyapan and Mr. Parth Rajput i/b
Talekar and Associates, Advocates for the Petitioner.
Mr. Ram Apte, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ashutosh Gole, Advocate for
the Respondent No.1/UOI.
****
CORAM : A.S.CHANDURKAR AND
M.M. SATHAYE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 2nd April 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 2nd May 2025
Sneha Chavan 1/7
::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 10/05/2025 07:57:50 :::
2 WP-1733-2018 C1.doc
JUDGMENT (Per M. M. Sathaye, J)
1. The petition is admitted on 23.09.2019. Heard learned
counsel for the parties finally.
2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the Petitioner is seeking directions against the Respondents to
pay arrears of conveyance allowance (CA), sumptuary allowance,
electricity and water charges allowance, coat and gown allowance,
rent free quarters during the period of his service.
3. The case of the Petitioner in short is as under:-
3.1 That the Petitioner was working as City Civil Judge, Mumbai
who retired on 11.04.2010. The Petitioner was offered post of
Presiding Officer of Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Judge, Mumbai ('CGIT' or 'the said Tribunal' for short). The
Petitioner accepted the said post and was appointment as Presiding
Officer of the said Tribunal on 16.09.2010. The Petitioner got
residential accommodation on 28.09.2011, which was after a year he
joined services. The Petitioner was entitled to rent free quarters from
12.10.2010 to 28.09.2011 but it was not made available. The
Petitioner fairly accepts that during this period, he was given HRA
however, he contends that it was petty amount. The Petitioner retired
as Presiding Officer of the said Tribunal on 11.04.2015.
3.2 On 07.11.2014, a few months before his retirement, the
Petitioner received a notice of recovery of arrears of transport
allowance to the tune of Rs.2,22,494/-. That the said Tribunal is
established under provisions of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
3 WP-1733-2018 C1.doc
('the said Act' for short) and the Members/Presiding Officers are
entitled to conveyance allowance in lieu of car. However, the proposal
for conveyance allowance to the Presiding Officer in lieu of car is
pending since 2008. That though it was declared by the concerned
Ministry that order will be soon issued about conveyance allowance,
till date no such order is issued. On the other hand, on 03.12.2014,
the Accounts Officer has issued letter of recovery of amount availed
by the Petitioner at a meager rate of Rs.6,000/- per month. This
recovery letter itself states that proposal for payment of conveyance
allowance to the Presiding Officer is under consideration, however no
decision is yet taken. The Petitioner is relying on the recommendation
of Shetty Commission and a Resolution dated 22.10.2010 of the State
of Maharashtra.
3.3 The Petitioner had filed representations dated 04.10.2011,
26.02.2016 and 05.04.2016. It is contended that the post of Presiding
Officer of the said Tribunal is equivalent to the Joint Secretary of the
Central Government and the Secretary of the State Government. That
the Petitioner was entitled to conveyance allowance at the rate of
Rs.22,000/- per month against which he was allowed to draw only
Rs.6,000/- per month in lieu of the car. A parity is claimed between
the Presiding Officer of Central Government Tribunal as well as the
Presiding Officer of the State Government Tribunal, contending that
they are doing same work and discharging same duties. The principle
of equal pay for equal work is invoked. It is contended that even after
two years from retirement, the Petitioner has not received arrears. In
these circumstances, the present petition is filed.
4. The Assistant Accounts Officer of Respondent Nos. 2 and
4 WP-1733-2018 C1.doc
3 has filed Affidavit-in-Reply dated 19.08.2019 contending inter alia
that as per applicable pay scale and the terms and conditions of
appointment of the Petitioner which were revised w.e.f. 01.01.2006,
the Petitioner was entitled to various allowances, which are paid.
That the Petitioner had an option of either to have a staff car for
official purposes only or use of his own vehicle with a grant of 75
liters of petrol per month, which is already paid. Rules of service
conditions were then revised vide notification dated 06.04.2015,
under which the option of having staff car or grant of petrol
remained the same. The appointment of the Petitioner and the dates
of appointment, retirement etc. are not disputed. It is contended that
the quantum of conveyance allowance payable to the Presiding
Officer of the National Industrial Tribunal (NIT) is different from
conveyance amount payable to the Presiding Officer of the CGIT. It is
contended that in 2015 after examining the issue, the Ministry of
Labour and Employment in consultation with the Finance Ministry
has notified comprehensive Rules which provides that the Presiding
Officer like the Petitioner of Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal
have an option of either to have staff car for official purpose only or
use of own vehicle with a grant of 75 litres of petrol per month. It is
contended that according to the provisions, only serving or retired
High Court Judges are eligible for the post of National Industrial
Tribunal (NIT) whereas retired and serving district/additional Judges
are eligible for the posts of Presiding Officer of CGIT. On this ground,
the claim of parity is opposed. That principal of equal pay for equal
work does not apply as between presiding officers of NIT and CGITs.
It is contended that the Petitioner was aware of the situation since
beginning and therefore, he is not entitled to agitate the present
grievance.
5 WP-1733-2018 C1.doc
5. The learned Counsel Mr. Talekar appearing for the
Petitioner has relied upon the various judgments of the Supreme
Court about Shetty and Padmanabhan committee recommendations.
He has also relied upon the judgment passed by the co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in PIL No. 96 of 2008 decided on 04.12.2018 in
the case of MBPT General Workers v/s Union of India and others.
This Judgment was passed during the pendency of this petition. It is
contended that the case of the present Petitioner himself as Presiding
Officer of CGIT-II has been referred in the said Judgment.
6. Per contra, Mr. Apte, learned Senior Advocate for the
Respondents, submitted that applicable HRA and thereafter rent free
accommodation was already provided to the Petitioner and it is an
admitted position. Sumptuary allowance is not admissible to the
Petitioner as per Rules, which are not challenged. He submitted that
coat and gown allowance is only admissible once in the 5 years and it
is limited to only stitching charges. He submitted that there is no
parity between the Presiding Officers of NIT and CGIT. Lastly it is
submitted that since the applicable rules are not challenged, the
Petitioner is not permitted to claim arrears under various heads as
claimed by him.
7. We have considered the rival submissions and perused
the record with the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties.
8. At the outset, it is noted that the Rules governing the
appointment of the Petitioner and the terms and conditions of the
services are not challenged by the Petitioner.
6 WP-1733-2018 C1.doc
9. Undoubtedly, the recommendations of Justice Shetty
Commission are accepted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as held in
All India Judges' Association and Others v/s Union of India and
Others [(2002) 4 SCC 247] and Presiding Officers of the Industrial
Tribunals are held entitled to parity with the District Judges as held
in State of Kerala Vs. B. Renjith Kumar and Ors. [(2008) 12 SCC
219]. Also admittedly, the State of Maharashtra is directed to comply
and implement the recommendation of Justice Shetty Commission
under the order of the Supreme Court in All India Judges Association
and others v/s. Union of India and Ors [(2011) 13 SCC 527].
10. We also note that the during the pendency of the present
petition, the pending PIL was heard finally and in paragraph 7(6) of
the Judgment in MBPT General Workers PIL (supra), this Court has
recorded that so far a the Petitioner's post was concerned, the
Petitioner himself was Presiding Officer of CGIT-II at that time. It was
further held and directed in para 22 as under :
22. As far as CGIT-II is concerned, while dealing with the issue of
providing residential accommodation to him, the entitlement of
CGIT-II has been already laid down. Paragraph 5 of the order
dated 29th June 2016 notes that all the facilities and perquisites
which are admissible to the post of District Judge as per the
recommendations of Shetty Commission and Padmanabhan
Commission, as may be amended from time to time, shall be
provided to the Presiding Officer of CGIT-II. The said direction
deserves to continue as a final direction for the reasons recorded
in the said order."
[Emphasis supplied]
11. It is seen from the record that under order dated
7 WP-1733-2018 C1.doc
05.03.2025, this order passed in PIL No. 96 of 2008 was brought to
the notice of the Respondents and time was granted to consider
whether the benefits of the said judgment can be extended to the
Petitioner. However, the Respondents have not shown any willingness
to consider the effect of the said judgment passed in the said PIL. No
further Affidavit-in-Reply or additional affidavit is filed about
directions in the said PIL. It is not brought to our notice that the
order passed in said PIL has been challenged.
12. In that view of the matter, we deem it appropriate to
exercise our writ jurisdiction and pass following order :
(A) The Respondents are directed to calculate the
arrears of allowances payable to the Petitioner by applying
all perquisites as admissible to the post of the District
Judge within a period of six weeks from today.
(B) After such calculation, the arrears be paid over the
Petitioner within a period of four weeks thereafter.
13. Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order
as to costs.
14. All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally
signed copy of this order.
(M.M. SATHAYE, J.) (A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.)
