Bombay High Court
Madhukar Khandu Zaware vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr Its ... on 19 September, 2022
Author: Sandeep V. Marne
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil, Sandeep V. Marne
1 wp3325.21 Judgment.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 3325 OF 2021
Madhukar s/o Khandu Zaware,
Age; 65 years, Occ; Pensioner,
R/o; Alkuti, Tq. Parner,
Dist. Ahmednagar. ...PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
General Administration Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad Ahmednagar,
District; Ahmednagar.
3. The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar,
District; Ahmednagar. ...RESPONDENTS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 3355 OF 2021
1. Ananda s/o Baban Sabale,
Age; 47 years, Occ; Service,
R/o; Shahunagar, Kedgaon,
Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar.
2. Kanifnath s/o Bajirao Sathe,
Age; 45 yeas, Occ; Service,
R/o; Narayan Doho,
Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar.
3. Mini Machindra Garje,
::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2022 06:51:42 :::
2 wp3325.21 Judgment.docx
Age; 46 years, Occ; Pensioner,
R/o; Near Nrusingh Vidhyala, Chas,
Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar.
4. Usha Pramod Daware,
Age; 53 years, Occ; Service,
R/o; Patil Galli, Bhingar,
Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar.
5. Anita Gopalrao Nevase,
Age; 51 years, Occ; Service,
R/o; Kanhur Pathar,
Tq. Panrer,
Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar. ...PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
General Administration Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad Ahmednagar,
District; Ahmednagar.
3. The Education Officer, (Primary)
Zilla Parishad Ahmednagar,
Dist. Ahmednagar. ...RESPONDENTS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 3356 OF 2021
Goraksha s/o Gangadhar Gore,
Ae; 44 years, Occ; Pensioner,
R/o; Om Colony, Sarasnagar,
Ahmednagar, Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar. ...PETITIONER
VERSUS
::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2022 06:51:42 :::
3 wp3325.21 Judgment.docx
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
General Administration Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad Beed,
District; Beed.
3. The Chief Executive Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad Ahmednagar,
District;Ahmednagar.
4. The Education Officer, (Primary)
Zilla Parishad Ahmednagar,
Dist. Ahmednagar. ...RESPONDENTS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 3357 OF 2021
Pandurang Nana Todakar, (Died),
Through its Lrs.
Suman w/o Pandurang Todakar,
Age; 45 years, Occ; Household,
R/o; Vadzire, Tq. Parner,
District; Ahmednagar. ...PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
General Administration Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad Ahmednagar,
District; Ahmednagar.
3. The Education Officer, (Primary)
Zilla Parishad Ahmednagar,
Dist. Ahmednagar. ...RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2022 06:51:42 :::
4 wp3325.21 Judgment.docx
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 3939 OF 2021
1. Dattaprasad s/o Maharudra Jangam,
Age; 51 years, Occ; Service,
R/o; Swami Viveknand Colony, Upla (ma)
Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad.
2. Chandrakant s/o Narayan Chilwante,
Age; 45 years, Occ; Service,
R/o; Him Nagar, Chorakhali,
Tq. Kallam Dist. Osmanabad.
3. Mohan s/o Motiram Shewale,
Age; 43 years, Occ; Service,
R/o; Near Vodaphone Tower, Lohara,
Tq. Lohara Dist. Osmanabad.
4. Chandrakant s/o Ramrao Nangare,
Age; 50 yeas, Occ; Service,
R/o; Hipraga Road, Lohara (Bk.)
Tq. Lohara Dist. Osmanabad. ...PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
General Administration Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad Osmanabad,
District; Osmanabad.
3. The Education Officer, (Primary)
Zilla Parishad Osmanabad,
Dist. Osmanabad. ...RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2022 06:51:42 :::
5 wp3325.21 Judgment.docx
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 3940 OF 2021
1. Balasaheb s/o Yadavrao Kamble,
Age; 50 years, Occ; Service,
R/o; Sant Goroba Kala Nagar,
Sanja Road Osmanabad,
Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad.
2. Nizamoddin s/o Mainoddin Inamdar,
Age; 42 years, Occ; Service,
R/o; Inamdar Galli, Naldurg,
Tq. Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad.
3. Dattatraya s/o Shivshankar Alure,
Age; 56 years, Occ; Service,
R/o; Andur, Tq. Tuljapur,
Dist. Osmanabad.
4. Parmeshwar s/o Basappa Sakhare,
Age; 44 years, Occ; Service,
R/o; Kedar Tq. Umerga,
Dist. Osmanabad.
5. Rajesh s/o Suresh Suryawanshi,
Age; 40 years, Occ; Service,
R/o; Harali, Tq. Lohara,
Dist. Osmanabad.
6. Shivkumar s/o Virbhadra Swami,
Age; 37 years Occ; Service,
R/o; Shirur, Tq. & Dist. Latur.
7. Bilal s/o Shikur Saudagar,
Age; 43 years, Occ; Service,
R/o; Naldurg, Tq. Tuljapur,
Dist. Osmanabad.
8. Vaijinath s/o Tayappa Kamble,
Age; 48 years, Occ; Service,
R/o; Jalkot, Tq. Tuljapur,
Dist. Osmanabad.
9. Shanta Amrut Salgar,
::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2022 06:51:42 :::
6 wp3325.21 Judgment.docx
Age; 39 years, Occ; Service,
R/o; Ter. Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad.
10. Babruwan s/o Dagdu Badule,
Age; 57 years, Occ; Service,
R/o; Wadi (Wadgaon), Tq. Umerga,
District; Osmanabad.
11. Nagnath s/o Subhana Kaluke,
Age; 52 years, Occ; Service,
R/o; Gulhali, Tq. Tuljapur,
District; Osmanabad.
12. Malas s/o Raghunath Aadatrao,
Age; 42 years, Occ; Service,
R/o; Karajkheda,
Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad.
13. Madhuri Somnath Kanthikar,
Age; 44 yeas, Occ; Service,
R/o; Dhoki
Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad.
14. Prakash s/o Vitthalrao Pawar,
Age; 36 years, Occ; Service,
R/o; Parola, Tq. Majalgaon,
Dist. Beed.
15. Anna s/o Shivmurti Itale,
Age; 47 years, Occ; Service,
R/o; Junoni
Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad.
16. Nitin s/o Goroba Waghmare,
Age; 36 years Occ; Service,
R/o; Lohara, Tq. Lohara,
District; Osmanabad.
17. Bhimashankar s/o Sudhakar Dokade,
Age; 44 yeas, Occ; Service,
R/o; Lohara, Tq. Lohara,
District; Osmanabad.
18. Rekha Prabhakar Sakhare,
Age; 32 years, Occ; Service,
::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2022 06:51:42 :::
7 wp3325.21 Judgment.docx
R/o; Samta Nagar, Osmanabad
Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad.
19. Mahadev s/o Sadashiv Newale, (Died)
Through its Lrs.
Vaishali Mahadev Newale,
Age; 44 years Occ; Household,
R/o; Wagholi,
Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad.
20. Dhanraj s/o Suresh Renuke,
Age; 54 years, Occ; Service,
R/o; Jalkot, Tq. Tuljapur,
Dist. Osmanabad.
21. Savita Pandurang Sathe,
Age; 52 years, Occ; Service,
R/o; S.T. Colony, Osmanabad,
Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad.
22. Apparao s/o Udhav Disale,
Age; 50 years, Occ; Service,
R/o; Barshi Road, Osmanabad.
Dist. Osmanabad.
23. Dilip s/o Datatraya Badale,
Age; 50 years, Occ; Service,
Ro; Adarsh Nagar, Osmanabad
Dist. Osmanabad.
24. Surekha Namdevrao Rathod,
Age; 41 years, Occ; Service,
R/o; Kader, Tq. Umerga,
District; Osmanabad. ...PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
General Administration Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad Osmanabad,
::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2022 06:51:42 :::
8 wp3325.21 Judgment.docx
District; Osmanabad.
3. The Education Officer, (Primary)
Zilla Parishad Osmanabad, ...RESPONDENTS
Dist. Osmanabad.
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 8794 OF 2021
1. Shakil Mahamomd Yousuf Jikre,
Age; 57 years, Occ; Service,
R/o; Darga Road, Osmanabad,
Tq. & Dist. Osanabad.
2. Amol s/o Ganpatrao Agre,
Age; 49 years, Occ; Service,
R/o; Samarth Nagar, Osmanabad,
Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad.
3. Nishigandha Vasantrao Chavan,
Age; 55 yers, Occ; Service,
R/o; Shukarwar Peth, Tuljapur,
Tq. Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad.
4. Hanmant s/o Mahadevrao Kadam,
Age; 56 years, Occ; Service,
r/o; Dharur, Tq. & Dist Osmanabad. ...PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
General Administration Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Public Health Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2022 06:51:42 :::
9 wp3325.21 Judgment.docx
3. The Dy. Director of Health Services,
Latur Circle, Arogya Sankool,
Collector Office Campus,
Barshi Road, Latur, Dist. Latur.
4. The Civil Surgeon,
District Civil Hospital Osmanabad,
District; Osmanabad.
5. The District Malaria Officer,
Malaria Office, Central Building
Osmanabad,
District; Osmanabad. ...RESPONDENTS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 10695 OF 2021
Laxman Nivarti Kamble, (Died),
Through its Lr.
Nirmala w/o Laxman Kamble,
Age; 51 years, Occ; Household,
R/o; Yeli, Post Jakekur, Tq. Omerga,
District; Osmanabad. ...PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
General Administration Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad Osmanabad,
District; Osmanabad.
3. The Education Officer, (Primary)
Zilla Parishad Osmanabad,
Dist. Osmanabad. ...RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2022 06:51:42 :::
10 wp3325.21 Judgment.docx
....................................
Shri Estling S. Murge, learned Advocate for Petitioners in all
Matters.
Shri A.S. Shinde, learned A.G.P. for State in WP 3325/2021,
WP/3355/2021, WP/3356/2021 & WP/3357/2021.
Shri Avinash Aghav, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 &
3 in WP/3325/2021, WP/3355/2021, WP/3356/2021 and WP/3357/2021.
Shri K.N. Lokhande, learned AGP for State in WP/3939/2021, &
WP/3940/2021.
Shri Shambhuraje V. Deshmukh, learned Advocate for
Respondent No. 2 in WP/3939/2021, WP/3940/2021 and
PW/10695/2021.
Shri S.B.Yawalkar, learned AGP for State in WP/8794/2021
Smt. R.P. Gaur, learned AGP for State in WP/10695/2021.
....................................
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &
SANDEEP V. MARNE, JJ.
DATE : 19.09.2022
JUDGMENT :[PER : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
1. Rule.
2. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned Advocates for the respective parties, heard finally at the stage of admission.
3. The issue involved in the present petitions is about the withdrawal of the benefit of additional increments for outstanding work.
Undisputedly all the petitioners have been awarded the benefit of such additional increments for outstanding work by passing specific orders.
However, on account of a circular dated 03.07.2009, it was directed ::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2022 06:51:42 ::: 11 wp3325.21 Judgment.docx that since some time was required for taking final decision for implementation of Paragraph No. 3.24 of the Hakim Committee constituted for implementation of 6th Pay Commission report, fixation of all employees in 6th Pay Commission pay scales would be done without taking into consideration/advance or additional increments.
Subsequently the benefit of additional/advance increments was withdrawn by issuing Government Resolution dated 24.08.2017. This Court has held in numerous decisions that the Government Resolution dated 24.08.2017 would not operate retrospectively. The State Government and the various Zilla Parishads' had filed a Review Petition seeking review of the said decision. By a detailed 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.), we have dismissed the Review Petitions and we once again held that the scheme of grant of advance/additional increments was effective till the issuance of Government Resolution dated 24.08.2017, which would only have prospective effect. Paragraph Nos. 12 to 15 of the Judgment are reproduced herein below :
"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.35 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 ::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2022 06:51:42 ::: 12 wp3325.21 Judgment.docx 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 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.::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2022 06:51:42 :::
13 wp3325.21 Judgment.docx Therefore, it was further directed that temporarily the pay fixation of the employees in the 6 th 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.
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 6 th 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 ::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2022 06:51:42 ::: 14 wp3325.21 Judgment.docx 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 taken by this Court that the Government Resolution dated 27.08.2017 would only have prospective effect."
4. Consequently, the Writ Petitions are allowed. It is declared that the Government Resolution dated 24.08.2017 will have a prospective effect. The respondents are directed to restore/grant the benefits of additional/advance increments to the petitioners from the date same are granted in their favour. Consequential monetary benefits be paid to the petitioners within a period of eight weeks from today.
5. Rule is made absolute.
( SANDEEP V. MARNE ) ( MANGESH S. PATIL )
JUDGE JUDGE
mahajansb/
::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2022 06:51:42 :::