Bombay High Court
Akhil Marathwada Zilla Parishad Kamgar ... vs State Of Mah & Ors on 1 September, 2016
Author: S. V. Gangapurwala
Bench: S. V. Gangapurwala
1 wp 1655.05
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1655 OF 2005
Akhil Marathwada Zilla Parishad
Kamgar Union, Branch Office at
Trade Union Center, Parbhani
Through its Joint Secretary
Uddhav Namdeo Shinde .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Principal Secretary
Rural Development and Water
Conversation Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.
2. Executive Engineer,
Works Division, Zilla Parishad,
Parbhani.
3. Deputy Engineer,
Zilla Parishad Works
Sub Division, Gangakhed,
District Parbhani. .. Respondents
Shri Shivaji T. Shelke, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mrs. M. A. Deshpande, Addl.G.P. for the Respondent No. 1.
Shri S. G. Shinde, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND
K. L. WADANE, JJ.
DATE : 01ST SEPTEMBER, 2016.
::: Uploaded on - 02/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2016 00:45:14 :::
2 wp 1655.05
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S. V. Gangapurwala, J.) :-
. Mr. Shelke, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that, the members of the petitioner union were working on daily wages and were brought on C.R.T. as per the Kalelkar award.
The employees who have put in five years continuous service on work charge establishment or on daily wages before 1986 and are thereafter brought on C.R.T. with retrospective effect. The benefit is given to the members of the petitioner union with retrospective effect including difference of salary. On 17.06.2004 the respondent No. 2 issued an order directing the respondent No. 3 and other subordinate officers to pay the difference of bonus in cash to the employees for the period from 01.04.1991 to 31.03.1999. Thereafter on 25.01.2005 the respondent No. 1 issued an order directing the respondent No. 3 to recover the amount of bonus difference which was paid as per letter dated 17.06.2004. The learned counsel submits that, when the salary difference was made admissible to the members of the petitioner union, the members of the petitioner union are also entitled for the bonus amount. The members of the petitioner union are Class IV employees. They are drawing meager salary and the recovery order would cause hardship to them. Many of the members of the petitioner union now would stand superannuated.
2. We have heard the learned Additional Government Pleader ::: Uploaded on - 02/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2016 00:45:14 ::: 3 wp 1655.05 for the respondent No. 1 and the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
3. We need not enter into the debate about the legality of the order on merits. All the members of the petitioner union are working on Class IV post. The difference of bonus amount was given to them after they were brought on C.R.T. This Court vide order dated 11.04.2005 had granted interim relief in terms of prayer clause 'C' thereby granting stay to the implementation of the order dated 25.01.2005, by virtue of which recovery was claimed.
4. It is fact that, the members of the petitioner union were working as Class IV employees. Many of the members of the petitioner union now have retired on attaining age of superannuation. Certainly, if recovery is claimed, much hardship would be caused to them. Considering the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, it would be improper for the respondents to claim recovery.
5. In the light of the above, the writ petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause "B". No costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
[ K. L. WADANE, J. ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]
bsb/Sept. 16
::: Uploaded on - 02/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2016 00:45:14 :::