Bombay High Court
Shantabai W/O Vitthalrao Chawre vs Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal Thr. Its Chief ... on 30 March, 2026
Author: M. S. Jawalkar
Bench: M. S. Jawalkar
2026:BHC-NAG:5106-DB
Judgment 1 J-WP No.6994.2023.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6994 OF 2023
Shantabai W/o Vitthalrao Chawre,
Aged About 62 years, Occ. Household,
R/o. C/o. U.G. Farde, Purna Colony,
Deoli Road, Amgaon, Dist. Gondia. .... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1) Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal
through its Chief Executive Officer.
2) The Executive Engineer,
Zilla Parishad, Construction Division,
Yavatmal.
3) The Divisional Commissioner,
Amravati Division, Amravati.
4) The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary, Department of
Rural Development and Water
Conservation, Bandhkam Bhavan,
Marzban Path, Mumbai-400032. .... RESPONDENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. P. D. Meghe, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. R.D. Bhuibhar, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1&2.
Mr. A.S. Fulzele, Additional Government Pleader for the
Respondent Nos.3 & 4.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : MRS. M. S. JAWALKAR AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE ON RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 25.02.2026
DATE ON PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 30.03.2026
Judgment 2 J-WP No.6994.2023.odt
JUDGMENT :(Per - M. S. JAWALKAR, J.)
1. Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission by consent and request of the parties.
2. The Petitioner by this petition is seeking directions for implementation of Government Resolution dated 08.06.1995 and the circular dated 22.06.2007 issued by Respondent No. 4 thereby conferring benefit of promotional pay scale of the post of Junior Engineer extended by Respondent No. 1 to other similarly situated employees as that of the husband of the Petitioner.
3. The husband of the Petitioner was appointed as 'Muster Clerk' by Respondent No. 1 on 22.02.1965. In order to avoid stagnation, the Government Resolution dated 08.06.1995 was issued to grant higher pay scale of promotional post to such employees who have completed 12 years of service w.e.f 01.10.1994. Accordingly, the husband of the Petitioner was granted a pay scale of 1200-30-1560-EB-40-2040 w.e.f. 01.10.1994 instead of pay scale of Junior Engineer.
Judgment 3 J-WP No.6994.2023.odt 4. In the year 1999, The Respondent No. 4 amalgamated the posts of Assistant Junior Engineer, Mistri Grade-I, Mistri Grade-II, Road Clerk, Muster Clerk, etc., into one cadre called as 'Civil Engineering Assistant'. Further, on 22.06.2007, the Respondent No. 4 intimated the CEOs of Zilla Parishad to provide promotional pay scale of Junior Engineer who have completed 12 years of service from their appointment date or from the date when the GR dated 08.06.1995 came into effect i.e., 01.10.1994. It is pertinent to note here that, the husband of the Petitioner stood retired from the services of Respondent No. 1 on 31.10.2004.
5. In view of Judgment and order passed in writ petition No. 4915/2012 dated 19.09.2013 by this Court, the Respondent No. 1 issued an office order granting pay scale of Junior Engineer to similarly situated, muster assistants, timekeepers etc. who have completed the age of 45 years or w.e.f. 01.10.1994, whichever is later. The Petitioner got knowledge about this information somewhere in the year 2019. It is further pertinent to note here that, the husband of the Judgment 4 J-WP No.6994.2023.odt Petitioner expired on 27.02.2012 that means immediately after 6 to 7 months, after the passing of Judgment.
6. It is further contended that after receiving information, the Petitioner made various representations to the Respondent Authorities for extending the benefit of pay scale of Junior Engineer to her husband. However, Respondents failed to reply the same.
7. On 31.12.2021, the Petitioner sought an information under Right to Information Act, 2005 regarding status of decision about her entitlement. The letter received under RTI shows that the process of granting pay scale of junior engineer i.e. 5500-9000 to the husband of petitioner was initiated but no further steps for release of benefits were taken. Aggrieved by this inaction, the Petitioner was constrained to file the present petition seeking directions to place the deceased husband of the Petitioner in the pay-scale 5500-9000 from 01.10.1994, with a further direction to grant all the monetary benefits including arrears of salary to the Petitioner.
Judgment 5 J-WP No.6994.2023.odt
8. The learned Counsel for Petitioner relied on following citations :
(i) Writ Petition No. 4094/2010 (Manohar Narayan Shile vs. Zilla Parishad Yavatmal & Anr.) , along with other matters, dated 14.06.2011;
(ii) Writ Petition No. 3557/2014, Smt. Anita w/o Suresh Wagh vs. Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal & Ors. , dated 17.02.2015 and
(iii) M. R. Gupta vs. Union of India, (1995) 5 SCC 628.
9. Per Contra, the Respondent No. 1 and 2, in its reply, contended that, the present petition needs to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. It is submitted that, Clause 5 of the Government Resolution dated 28.07.2014 provides that, as the pay-scale of Junior Engineer is similar to the pay-scale of Civil Engineering Assistant, the Civil Engineering Assistants are not entitled for higher pay-scale when such Assistants are absorbed as Junior Engineers in the establishment of the Respondents.
10. It is further contended by the Respondent No. 1 and 2 that, the second benefit could be granted only in the event of completion of 12 years of service from the date when the first benefit was granted to such employees. As a matter of fact, the Judgment 6 J-WP No.6994.2023.odt deceased husband of the petitioner was granted first benefit on 01.10.1994 and that he stood superannuated on 31.10.2004 i.e before completion of 12 years of service from the date of receiving the first benefit, and therefore, the second benefit could not be granted to the husband of the Petitioner.
11. The learned Council for the Respondent relied on Union of India (UOI) & Ors. .vs. N. Murugesan & Ors., (2021) 10 SCR 253.
12. Heard the submissions of both parties at length and examined the documents and authorities relied upon by their respective counsels.
13. The Petitioner herein filed a rejoinder, wherein he has duly explained that there is no delay or laches on the part of the Petitioner. It is submitted that in the matter of M. R. Gupta .vs. Union of India (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court, way back in the year 1994 clearly held that if any pay fixation was not in accordance with the rules or government resolution or any law laid down by this Court, then it is continuing wrong which gives right to recurring cause of action, each time the Judgment 7 J-WP No.6994.2023.odt employee is paid a salary. It is pointed out that after the Judgment passed by this Court on 14.06.2011 in Writ Petition No. 4094/2010 (supra), the Respondent Zilla Parishad passed the order dated 12.08.2011, whereby the retired employees were extended benefit of time-bound promotion as Junior Engineer. If the said list is perused, there was no reason for exclusion the husband of the Petitioner.
14. In support of his contention the Respondent relied on Union of India vs. N. Murugesan (supra), wherein in para 28, it is held as under :
"28. This Court has accepted the above principles of English law. In Tilokchand Motichand v. H. B. Munshi [MANU/SC/0127/1968 : (1969) 1 SCC 110 : (1969) 2 SCR 824] and Rabindranath Bose v. Union of India [MANU/SC/0506/1969 : (1970) 1 SCC 84 : (1970) 2 SCR 697] this Court ruled that even in cases of violation or infringement of fundamental rights, a writ court may take into account delay and laches on the part of the Petitioner in approaching the court. And if there is gross or unexplained delay, the court may refuse to grant relief in favour of such Petitioner".
15. In our considered opinion, there is no question of any delay or laches as husband of the Petitioner stood retired in the year 2004 and the order came to be issued on 12.08.2011 Judgment 8 J-WP No.6994.2023.odt extending benefit to the retired persons. However, the Petitioner's husband expired on 27.02.2012, therefore there was hardly any time for the husband of the Petitioner to raise any objection to the order dated 12.08.2011, issued by the Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal. The Petitioner also amended the Petition and produced the documents obtained by her under Right to Information Act, 2005. There is a Note-sheet of 09.11.2020, from which it appears that the claim of the husband of Petitioner was under consideration. Similarly, there is a proposal placed by the establishment to grant exemption from departmental examination and practical examination for Civil Engineer Assistant to the husband of the Petitioner. There is an endorsement dated 09.02.2022 showing that the original service book is called for and which was submitted for perusal. However, there is nothing heard about this proposal by the Petitioner. Thus, there is no question of any delay and laches on the part of the Petitioner.
16. Moreover, the claim of husband of the Petitioner neither allowed nor rejected. In view of the fact that the Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal extended the benefit to all the retired Judgment 9 J-WP No.6994.2023.odt employees, those who are much latter appointed in the service of Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal. The husband of the Petitioner was appointed in the year 1965 as a Muster Clerk and brought regular establishment w.e.f. 01.04.1974. In the year 1995, the Government of Maharashtra issued a resolution granting higher pay-scale to those employees who could not get promotion and who were stagnating in the same post for years together. Accordingly, the Respondent No.1 granted pay-scale 1200-30- 1560-EB-40-2040 to the husband of the Petitioner w.e.f. 01.10.1994. The contention of the Petitioner is that her husband stood retired from the service of Respondent No.1 on 31.10.2004 in the pay scale of 4000-6000, which was given w.e.f. 01.01.1996 till he stood retired. As per the Circular dated 22.06.2007, he ought to have been granted pay-scale of Junior Engineer i.e. 5500-9000, it was not given to him. After getting the knowledge of the Judgment of this Court, the Petitioner applied for re-fixing the pay-scale of her husband. In fact, it is the respondent who ought to have granted benefit to all similarly situated employees. Thus, act of the Respondent is discriminatory.
Judgment 10 J-WP No.6994.2023.odt
17. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following order :
(i) The writ petition is partly allowed.
(ii) The Respondent No.1 - Chief Executive Officer, Zilla
Parishad, Yavatmal is hereby directed to place the Late Vitthalrao Chaware, husband of the Petitioner in the pay-scale of 5500-9000 from 01.10.1994 and to grant all the monetary benefits including arrears of salary to the Petitioner accordingly.
(iii) The Respondent No.1 - Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal is further directed to revise the pension of husband of the Petitioner i.e. Late Vitthalrao Chaware as per his revised pay and to pay the difference of other retiral benefits including gratuity based upon pay-scale of Junior Engineer and also to pay arrears of pension accordingly.
18. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) (SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.) Kirtak Signed by: Mr. B.J. Kirtak Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 01/04/2026 18:04:21