Bombay High Court
Municipal Council, Tumsar, Through ... vs Laxmibai Ashok Ragde on 6 February, 2020
Author: S.M.Modak
Bench: R.V. Ghuge, S.M.Modak
1 ca1604of18.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1604 OF 2018
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 4577 OF 2015
(Municipal Council, Tumsar .vs. Laxmibai Ashok Ragde)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri M.I. Dhatrak, Advocate for applicant.
Shri P.V. Thakre, Advocate for Non-applicant.
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND
: S.M.MODAK, JJ.
DATE: 6th FEBRUARY, 2020.
1. By this application, the original respondent Municipal Council, Tumsar in Writ Petition No. 4577/2015, prays for a modification of the order passed by this Court (Coram : Smt.Vasanti A. Naik and Kum. Indira Jain - JJ.), on 16.9.2016.
2. It is submitted that the counsel for the Municipal Council had not brought it to the notice of the Court when the order was passed that the Municipal Council has not paid arrears of 6th Pay Commission to the class IV employees for the period 2006-2009. In a similar matter, Writ Petition No. 4655/2017, this Court (Coram:Smt.Vasanti A. Naik and A.D. Upadhye - JJ) have passed an order on 24.2.2018, wherein this issue was considered and after it was brought to the notice of this Court, the order dated 24.2.2018, was passed. The relevant clause in the said order is as under:
::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 02:21:37 :::2 ca1604of18.odt II) If the respondent - Municipal Council decides to pay the arrears of salary as per the recommendations of the VIth Pay Commission to the other employees of the Municipal council for the period from 2006 to 2009, the Municipal Council would pay the arrears to the petitioner at the same time".
3. The learned Advocate for the original petitioner has vehemently opposed this Civil Application and submits that once a statement is made before this Court, such statement cannot be easily retracted. It is also submitted that the original petitioner would be entitled to such difference of salary. It is conceded that the gratuity as well as leave encashment, have been paid.
4. We find from the subsequent order dated 24.2.2018, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 4655/2017, that the counsel for the Municipal Council had pointed out that the Municipal Council was yet to decide as to whether it would agree to pay the arrears of salary as per the 6th Pay Commission recommendations to the employees of the Municipal Council for the period 2006-
2009. The Municipal Council has finally decided that it cannot shoulder the financial burden of paying such amounts to such employees. So also, the entitlement of the original petitioner to claim such arrears is not cristilized and this Court had left it to the Municipal Council to take a decision and apply such decision on parity to all similarly situated employees.
::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 02:21:37 :::3 ca1604of18.odt
5. The learned Advocate for the original petitioner submits that if this Court is inclined to modify the earlier order, liberty may be granted to the petitioner to raise a claim as regards such arrears and have the claim decided by the Industrial Court under the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971.
6. In view of the above, this Civil Application is allowed and the 2nd paragraph on internal page No. 2, of the order dated 16.9.2016, shall be modified and shall read as under:
"In the circumstances of the case and on parity, we partly allow the Writ Petition by directing the respondent Municipal Council to release the retiral dues to the petitioner. If the Municipal Council decides to pay the arrears of salary as per the 6th Pay Commission recommendations to similarly situated employees of the Municipal Council for the period of 2006-09, the petitioner shall be treated at par with such employees and would thus be entitled to such arrears".
7. We make it clear that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Municipal Council in taking a decision not to pay arrears of salary as per the 6 th Pay Commission recommendations, he would be at liberty to assail the said order and seek crystallization of his rights before the Industrial Court under the MRTU and PULP Act, ::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 02:21:37 ::: 4 ca1604of18.odt 1971 or by raising an industrial dispute under section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
(S.M. Modak, J.) (Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.) Belkhede RS ::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 02:21:37 :::