Bombay High Court
Shivaji Vidyapeeth Sevak Sangh Thru Its ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 7 February, 2020
Bench: S. C. Dharmadhikari, R.I.Chagla
907.WP-792-19 & Ors.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.792 OF 2019
Shivaji Vidyapeeth Sevak Sangh ... Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NOS.793 OF 2019
Yashwant Krishnaji Kulkarni and Ors. ... Petitioners
versus
State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.1376 OF 2019
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.452 OF 2019
Dhiwar Sunil Kisan and Ors. ... Petitioners
versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (ST) NO.5919 of 2019
Prof.Atul Govind Bagul and Anr. ... Petitioners
versus
State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8842 OF 2019
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1910 OF 2019
Uday S/o Prabhakar Jawale and Ors. ... Petitioners
versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
Page 1 of 26
M.M.Salgaonkar
::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2020 01:42:01 :::
907.WP-792-19 & Ors.doc
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8843 OF 2019
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1911 OF 2019
Manoj Kumar S/o Ulhasrao Wadgaonkar
and Ors. ... Petitioners
versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8844 OF 2019
Vijay s/o Laxmanrao Pund and Ors. ... Petitioners
versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8845 OF 2019
Mahesh s/o Rajeshwarrao Danke ... Petitioner
versus
The Government of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8846 OF 2019
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1913 OF 2019
Gorkhnath S/o Baburao Tezad and Ors. ... Petitioners
versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8847 OF 2019
Dr.Shamkant s/o Rajaram Bhadlikar ... Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
Page 2 of 26
M.M.Salgaonkar
::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2020 01:42:01 :::
907.WP-792-19 & Ors.doc
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8848 OF 2019
Mr.Shakeel Ahmed s/o Mohd.Haneef Rampure... Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8849 OF 2019
Anil s/o Mukundrao Jadhav ... Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8850 OF 2019
Sandeep s/o Suryakant Darbastwar ... Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8855 OF 2019
Mr.Mohammed Ali s/o Mr.Iqbalali ... Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8856 OF 2019
Jagannath S/O Girjaba Adhav ... Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8858 OF 2019
Shobha D/o Shripatrirao Kisve ... Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
Page 3 of 26
M.M.Salgaonkar
::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2020 01:42:01 :::
907.WP-792-19 & Ors.doc
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8859 OF 2019
Mr.Narendra s/o Chandrakant Modi ... Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8860 OF 2019
Subhash s/o Dattatraya Mungikar ... Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8861 OF 2019
Mr.Namdeo s/o Gangaram Gikwad ... Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8862 OF 2019
Arvind s/o Raghunathrao Helwade ... Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 8863 OF 2019
Mir Mushtaq Ali s/o Shaukat Ali ... Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8864 OF 2019
Mr.Anil s/o Turakram Khamgaonkar ... Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
Page 4 of 26
M.M.Salgaonkar
::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2020 01:42:01 :::
907.WP-792-19 & Ors.doc
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8865 OF 2019
Vijayanand s/o Giridharrao Darbastwar ... Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8866 OF 2019
Mr.Sudarshan s/o Bharatdas Vaishnav ... Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8868 OF 2019
Nitin s/o Ramkrishna Kadu ... Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8870 OF 2019
Mr.Appasaheb s/o Karbhari Bagul ... Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8871 OF 2019
Sanjau s/o Murlidhar Wagh ... Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8873 OF 2019
Mr.Kakaji s/o Laxman Kakde ... Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
Page 5 of 26
M.M.Salgaonkar
::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2020 01:42:01 :::
907.WP-792-19 & Ors.doc
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8874 OF 2019
Mr.Dhanaji s/o Narayan Bakle ... Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8875 OF 2019
Mr.Nandkumar s/o Ramrao Ankush ... Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8877 OF 2019
Mr.Yogesh s/o Sahebrao Shinde ... Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8878 OF 2019
Mr.Subhash s/o Suryabhan Pawar ... Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8879 OF 2019
Mr.Sachin s/o Ramesh Rapte ... Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8880 OF 2019
Mr.Sadashiv s/o Babulal Tongire ... Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
Page 6 of 26
M.M.Salgaonkar
::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2020 01:42:01 :::
907.WP-792-19 & Ors.doc
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8881 OF 2019
Mr.Sanjay s/o Baduji Sathe ... Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8883 OF 2019
Mr.Deepak s/o Ramrao Jadhav ... Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8884 of 2019
Mrs.Sunanda d/o Ravikiran Sarwade ... Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8886 OF 2019
Mr.Gangadhar s/o Hanmantrao Yepurwar ... Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8887 OF 2019
Mr.Dilip s/o Laxman Jadhav ... Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8888 OF 2019
Mr.Mohd.Lateef s/o Mohd.Yusuf ... Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
Page 7 of 26
M.M.Salgaonkar
::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2020 01:42:01 :::
907.WP-792-19 & Ors.doc
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8889 OF 2019
Mr.Arjun s/o Mahadu Khandre ... Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8890 OF 2019
Niranjan Babasaheb Mane ... Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8891 OF 2019
Kailash s/o Bhaurao Deshmukh .... Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8926 OF 2019
Jeevanraj s/o Kundanlal Dongre ... Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8927 OF 2019
Bhimrao s/o Ramrao Mahadik ... Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8928 OF 2019
Rajumar s/o Bhausaheb Raktate ... Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
Page 8 of 26
M.M.Salgaonkar
::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2020 01:42:01 :::
907.WP-792-19 & Ors.doc
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8929 OF 2019
Dadasaheb s/o Prabhakar Manohar ... Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8930 OF 2019
Prakash s/o Pandurang Akade ... Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8931 of 2019
Mr.Vikas s/o Vasudeo Manwatkar ... Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8933 OF 2019
Netra w/o Ramesh Kshirsagar ... Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8935 OF 2019
Mrs.Mukta w/o Pradeep Chandwadkar ... Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8936 OF 2019
Ramesh s/o Asaram Kshirsagar ... Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
Page 9 of 26
M.M.Salgaonkar
::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2020 01:42:01 :::
907.WP-792-19 & Ors.doc
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8937 OF 2019
Manoj s/o Gajanan Shete .... Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8939 OF 2019
Bhaginath s/o Namdeo Jadhav ... Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8940 OF 2019
Ms.Kalpana d/o Trimbakrao Bhagwat .... Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8941 OF 2019
Ashok s/o Kishan Vaishnav ... Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8942 OF 2019
Mr.Dinkar s/o Pralhad Jagdale ... Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8943 OF 2019
Raosaheb s/o Roduba Dudhe ... Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
Page 10 of 26
M.M.Salgaonkar
::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2020 01:42:01 :::
907.WP-792-19 & Ors.doc
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8944 OF 2019
Ms.Savita d/o Bhujangrao Kadam ... Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8945 of 2019
Appasaheb s/o Narayan Wani ... Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8946 OF 2019
Mr.Madhav s/o Gunaji Wagatkar ... Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8951 of 2019
Mrs.Manjusha w/o Kiran Shastri ... Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8955 OF 2019
Mr.Praveen s/o Harichandra Jawale ... Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8959 OF 2019
Mr.Suresh s/o Kashinath Ingale ... Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
Page 11 of 26
M.M.Salgaonkar
::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2020 01:42:01 :::
907.WP-792-19 & Ors.doc
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 24229 of 2019
Dhame Sampat Kondiba and Ors. ... Petitioners
versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.1244 OF 2020
Sant Gadgebaba Aravati Univ Non-Teaching
Employees Union ... Petitioner
versus
State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
Mr.G.S.Godbole a/w Mr.Meelan Topkar for
the Petitioner in WP/792/19.
Mr.Mihir Desai-Senior Advocate i/b
Sarnath Sariputta Pramod for the
Petitioner in WP/793/19.
Mr.Anil Kumar Patil with Mr.Jitendra
Gaikwad for the Petitioner in
WP/1376/19.
Mr.A.V.Anturkar-Senior Advocate i/b
Mr.Prathamesh Bhargude for the
Petitioner in PILST/5919/19 and
CAW/452/19.
Mr.Ashwin Sakolkar h/f Avinash
Deshmukh and Mr.A.N.Kakade for the
Petitioner in WP/8842/19 and 8843/19.
Mr.Anish Khandekar for the Petitioner in
WP/1244/2020.
Mr.R.B.Ade for the Petitioner in
WP/8844/19.
Mr.A.A.Kumbhkoni-Advocate General
with Mr.P.P.Kakade-Government Pleader,
Mr.Vikas M. Mali-AGP and
Mrs.R.A.Salunkhe-AGP for State.
Page 12 of 26
M.M.Salgaonkar
::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2020 01:42:01 :::
907.WP-792-19 & Ors.doc
Mr.R.S.Apte-Senior Advocate i/b
Mr.Rajendra Anbhule for Respondent
No.4 in WP/793/19, WP/1376/19,
PILST/5919/19.
Mr.Vasant R. Kadam i/b Mr.Yuvraj P.
Narvankar for Respondent No.6 in
WP/792/19.
CORAM :- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI &
R.I.CHAGLA, JJ.
DATE :- FEBRUARY 7, 2020 P.C. :-
1. The petitioners in these petitions are aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 17th December, 2018 issued by respondent No.2 in Writ Petition No.792 of 2019. Respondent No.2 therein is the Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Department, Government of Maharashtra. He has, by this order, directed the respondents not to alter, amend, modify the pay fixation of the non-teaching employees of the sixth respondent-
Shivaji University, Kolhapure done as per the Government Resolution dated 24th February, 2011. The other prayers are that there is an further order passed on 1st January, 2019, which visits the petitioners with recoveries. A copy of that order is at page 188 of the paper-book of Writ Petition No.792 of 2019. By that, the Government has decided to implement the Government Resolution dated 17th December, 2018.
Page 13 of 26 M.M.Salgaonkar ::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2020 01:42:01 :::
907.WP-792-19 & Ors.doc
2. The petitioners before us are more or less identically situate, but may be from different Universities. All of them are aggrieved by these orders. It is stated in the petitions that Shivaji Vidyapeeth Sevak Sangh is a registered trade union and represents 90% non-teaching employees employed by Shjvaji University, Kolhapur. It is said that there are twelve non- agricultural universities in the entire State of Maharashtra. The first respondent is the State and the second respondent is the Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Department, Government of Maharashtra, whereas. the third respondent is the Secretary of Finance Department. The fourth and fifth respondents are the Director of Higher Education and the Joint Director of Higher Education, respectively. The sixth respondent is the Shivaji University, Kolhapur.
3. After referring to the staffing pattern and the pay-scales, the petitioners state that the staffing pattern and the pay-scales are in conformity with the Government Resolutions, which, in turn, comply with the orders and directions of this Court.
4. It is stated that the Maharashtra Non-Agricultural Universities and Affiliated Colleges Standard Code (Revised Pay- scales to non-teaching staff) Rules, 2009 (for short, "the 2009 Rules") were brought into effect from 1 st January, 2006. The pay- Page 14 of 26 M.M.Salgaonkar ::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2020 01:42:01 :::
907.WP-792-19 & Ors.doc scales of the non-teaching employees working in the twelve Non- Agricultural Universities mentioned therein and aided colleges affiliated to the said Universities were revised as per the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commissioner with effect from 1st January, 2006. The Government directives of 6 th July, 2009 and the 2009 Rules expected the sixth respondent-University to submit a detailed proposal of posts for fixing staffing pattern in the sixth respondent. The proposal was forwarded on 27 th September, 2010 to the second respondent. There were 748 incumbents working against 644 sanctioned posts. Hence, the excess were supernumerary posts, which would lapse after retirement of the incumbents working on the said posts. Pursuant to this proposal, Government Resolution dated 13th October, 2010 came to be issued. The sixth respondent is purported to have realised its mistake and, therefore, informed the Government that a revised proposal is forwarded and for administrative reasons, there is a need to change the number of posts. The petitioners are relying upon the Government's notings and remarks in the files to urge that such an exercise, as is carried out in accordance with the Fifth and Sixth Pay Commissions' recommendations, did not suffer from any infirmity, error, much less gross irregularity and illegality. Page 15 of 26 M.M.Salgaonkar ::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2020 01:42:01 :::
907.WP-792-19 & Ors.doc
5. The queries of the Government were satisfactorily answered by the University. However, the petitioners and some members, who retired from service, apprehend that pursuant to some communications from the Director of Higher Education and the Joint Director of Higher Education, the entire exercise will be recalled.
6. Now, on account of the communications and orders, the pension to retiring employees has been withheld and the fixation of pay-scales of in service employees is sought to be cancelled. There is likelihood of recoveries from the monthly salaries.
7. These facts, with some marginal differences, are common to other petitions and raising similar challenge.
8. On the previous occasions, exhaustive orders were passed so that the petitions pending before the Benches at Aurangabad and Nagpur could be called for and tagged with the matters pending at the Principal Seat.
9. Now, we have petitions from the Principal Seat, the Benches at Aurangabad and Nagpur and a Public Interest Litigation (St) No.5919 of 2019 with Writ Petition No.1376 of 2019. Page 16 of 26 M.M.Salgaonkar ::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2020 01:42:01 :::
907.WP-792-19 & Ors.doc
10. The Public Interest Litigation seeks enforcement of the Government Resolution/Order dated 17th December, 2018 and prays for re-determination of pay-scales of the employees of the Universities. A contention of the PIL petitioner is that, without prior approval of the Finance Department, the designations and pay-scales of non-teaching employees of concerned Non- Agricultural Universities cannot be modified or revised.
11. We do not express any opinion on the maintainability of the PIL for counsel appearing for the parties, namely, the Unions and individual non-teaching employees in substantive writ petitions would submit that the PIL raises issues concerning service matters. In service matters, no PIL can be entertained.
12. We do not express any opinion on this objection for the time being.
13. However, when we heard all the matters and on the point of admission and interim relief, there is a broad agreement that the writ petitions other than the PIL require consideration by this Court and, therefore, the same be admitted. Such of the matters, in which Rule has not been issued as yet, would, therefore, stand admitted by today's order.
Page 17 of 26 M.M.Salgaonkar ::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2020 01:42:01 :::
907.WP-792-19 & Ors.doc
14. We have heard both sides. Some arguments were canvassed by one or two petitioners before the Aurangabad Bench as well. However, Mr.Mihir Desai, learned senior counsel, Mr.Girish Godbole and other advocates appearing in the matters at the Principal Seat, Mr.Sakolkar appearing in one of the matter at Aurangabad and Mr.Avinash Deshmukh equally in some matters from Aurangabad pray that there is an interim order passed by the Division Bench at Aurangabad. That is passed in Writ Petition No.969 of 2019 (Manojkumar Ulhasrao Wadgaonkar and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.). This order be continued is their request.
15. The learned Advocate General, however, submits that the orders passed by this Court, particularly, at its Benches and in some petitions at Bombay denote that the order or decision of the Government contained in Government Resolution dated 17 th December, 2018 is held in abeyance or stayed. A blanket stay cannot be granted bearing in mind the peculiar facts and circumstances and the language of the impugned order.
16. We have, therefore, only for the purpose of consideration of the interim relief or the continuation of the above order passed by Aurangabad Bench, perused the subject Government Resolution. A copy of this Resolution is annexed to the memo of the Writ Page 18 of 26 M.M.Salgaonkar ::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2020 01:42:01 :::
907.WP-792-19 & Ors.doc Petition No.792 of 2019 at page 183 of the paper-book. That Resolution refers to about seventeen prior Government Resolutions.
17. The subject on which the impugned Government Resolution is issued concerns the alteration or amendment in the name of the posts, the change or revision in the pay-scales and purports to restore all this to previous regime. In other words, the nomenclature and the label of the posts, the pay-scales are sought to be restored by the subject Resolution. The subject Resolution says that although the Government had, by the Government Resolution dated 7th October, 2009, accepted the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission and directed the pay fixation in terms thereof, it also had communicated as to how the pay-scales have to be fixed and determined. Then, there is a reference to the Government Resolution dated 6th July, 2009 with regard to the Group 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D' posts. There is a reference to the staffing pattern, University-wise. There is also a reference made to the Government Resolutions, which are at Sr.Nos.10 to 17 of the impugned Government Resolution, which denotes that in some Universities, the nomenclature or label of the post has been altered. However, while doing so, even the pay-scales have been modified and revised. There is a serious doubt because by this Page 19 of 26 M.M.Salgaonkar ::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2020 01:42:01 :::
907.WP-792-19 & Ors.doc exercise, the Government revenue/public funds are misappropriated. In other words, excess amounts have been paid although by admissible pay-scales, these amounts could not have been released and disbursed. That is why wherever such instances have occurred, the Government has decided to cancel the earlier Government Resolutions and direct that the entire exercise be redone in terms of the Government Resolutions dated 4th February, 1999 and 7th October, 2009.
18. Therefore, the Government has cancelled the Government Resolutions at Sr.Nos.10 to 17, which have been referred to in the impugned Government Resolution, with retrospective effect.
19. Thereafter, the Government has utilised the services of the officials working in its Accounts and Revenue Division/Department. It has set up a special squad. After that special squad is set up and it was directed to forward its report, the further action was to be taken. The further steps would be taken after the report of this special squad is received. It is stated that the steps will have to be taken consistent with the decision in this Government Resolution. The argument of the petitioners' counsel before us is that the Government has already taken a decision by this Government Resolution and it has far reaching consequences. Now, there is no question of any adjudication. The Page 20 of 26 M.M.Salgaonkar ::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2020 01:42:01 :::
907.WP-792-19 & Ors.doc adjudication would be an empty formality. In other words, though the petitioners have not been accused of any collusion or connivance with the official/s at higher level, still, it is impossible and inconceivable that a Desk Officer (junior) level official would have the courage to effect such sweeping changes and modifications so also revisions in pay-scales resulting in alleged bonanza or a windfall as alleged by the learned Advocate General. The counsel for the petitioners would submit that unless there is any evidence or material of any involvement of the petitioners or collusion and connivance with the above official/s the earlier Government Resolutions could not have been cancelled and recovery ordered. Now, the recovery is a forgone conclusion. The pay-scales would stand restored to what the Government feels is the accurate and appropriate computation. The final directions, in terms of the impugned Government Resolution are issued. Therefore, these petitions are maintainable and deserve to be allowed. In any event, the interim order should be continued.
20. What we have noted from the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the parties is that some of the employees have retired from service. They are awaiting fixation of their pension and pensionary benefits. The other set of employees apprehend that recovery would be made from their monthly Page 21 of 26 M.M.Salgaonkar ::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2020 01:42:01 :::
907.WP-792-19 & Ors.doc salaries and they would suffer immensely. Such being the controversy before us and we finding that the further steps in the Government Resolution, which is challenged in the petition, would require the special squad set up to consider all issues and facets of the controversy, we put it to the learned Advocate General as to whether an independent official, who has powers under the Maharashtra Pay and Pension Rules, could be appointed so that the petitioners will place their grievance before him. This could be a individual or a team of the officials. However, they are expected to give the petitioners a minimal opportunity so that all records and documents in their possession and which would be used allegedly to the detriment of the petitioners' case, would be made known after whch the version of the petitioners would be considered in this brief or minimal opportunity and thereafter, a report will be forwarded to the Government for necessary action. Until then we can keep these petitions pending.
21. Mr.Kumbhakoni, learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State, on previous occasion sought time to take instructions. At his request, the matters were placed today. We had indicated to all parties that we would pass a brief order after Mr.Kumbhakoni reverts back to us.
Page 22 of 26 M.M.Salgaonkar ::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2020 01:42:01 :::
907.WP-792-19 & Ors.doc
22. Today, Mr.Kumbhakoni, learned Advocate General, on instructions, states that the Principal Accountant General (Audit), State of Maharashtra would appoint senior level officials from his office together with a Supervising Officer to be nominated by the Accountant General, State of Maharashtra and they would complete the exercise as desired by the petitioners.
23. The apprehension of the learned Advocate General is that a elaborate and lengthy exercise would be insisted and the officials, who are concerned with protecting and safeguarding public revenue and public funds, may not be equipped to carry out the same. We clarified to Mr.Godbole, Mr.Mihir Desai and other counsel appearing for the petitioners that they cannot expect the above exercise to be a trial before a Court of law. They cannot insist that prescribed procedure should be followed on par with a court of law. That this is not a trial in a criminal case or a civil suit for recovery. It will be an exercise, which will offer minimal opportunity to meet the case as set out in the impugned Government Resolution and order and to place before the official or team of officials the material in possession of the university as also the individual employee supporting the fixation of pay-scales and change of nomenclature. The two aspects which go to the root of the matter are (i) change of the nomenclature and label of the Page 23 of 26 M.M.Salgaonkar ::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2020 01:42:01 :::
907.WP-792-19 & Ors.doc post as per the staffing pattern and (ii) the revision of pay- scales on the basis of the change in nomenclature/label. On the basis of that, the financial implications would, therefore, be the next aspect to be dealt with by this official. All materials in relation to the same can be placed before the official University-wise by all concerned, including the affected non-teaching employees.
24. If there is a union of the non-teaching employees, the opportunity contemplated by our order shall be extended only to the authorised representative or office bearer of such union. None of the unions or the individual employees can engage the services of an advocate or legal practitioner. They will have to satisfy the team of officials appointed in terms of our direction and the statement of the Advocate General on the twin issues referred above. Thus, this representative of the non-teaching employees be invited for this exercise by the team. As far as possible and in exceptional matters only, when the individual petitioners seek such an opportunity, then, the team of the officials will extend that opportunity to a individual. However, the Unions would not be heard to say that in every case the individual employees an representatives of the said union both should be heard. In case of a representative or recognised union, Page 24 of 26 M.M.Salgaonkar ::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2020 01:42:01 :::
907.WP-792-19 & Ors.doc only that will be heard through its authorised representative and none else.
25. The team of officials is also expected to give an opportunity to the competent official or authority in the concerned university and ascertain from him or it the manner in which the exercise on the above noted twin issues was carried out. They would be entitled to peruse the original record and particularly, the accounts of the said university.
26. Let the above exercise be completed as expeditiously as possible and in any event by, 15th April, 2020.
27. Needless to clarify that the team of officials cannot be embarrassed or inconvenienced by calling upon them to hear every individual employee and it is for them to take a call and decision to nominate and appoint a representative from amongst them to present their case. In the case which is argued by Mr.Sakolkar, he says that the petitioners therein have been promoted and they are holding a promotional post and that is why the upward revision in their pay is justified.
28. We do not think that these cases are different for the simple reason that if there is a change in the label or nomenclature and Page 25 of 26 M.M.Salgaonkar ::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2020 01:42:01 :::
907.WP-792-19 & Ors.doc these petitioners are holding a post, which is not a promotional post as per the staffing pattern, then, naturally the team of officials can revisit their pay fixation and take an appropriate decision albeit after giving the opportunity as directed above to them as well.
29. The interim orders issued till date as modified today would continue. In other words, until further orders, the recovery in terms of the impugned orders cannot be effected.
(R.I.CHAGLA, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.) Page 26 of 26 M.M.Salgaonkar ::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2020 01:42:01 :::