Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

DATE : 01.07.2024 PER COURT :-

1. In all these matters, the Petitioners are identically placed.

All of them are Class-III employees working on the post of Arogya Sevak. All of them were granted revision in pay scale in terms of the "one step pay scale" that is made available for working in the tribal/PESA areas. All of them retired on attaining the age of superannuation, in 2023. An undertaking was extracted from all of them at the stroke of their retirement.

(c) It will have to be verified as to whether these Petitioners were actually working in the tribal/PESA area.

(d) The Petitioners could have raised a grievance with the Zilla Parishad instead of approaching this Court directly.

(e) It would be appropriate to dispose off these Petitions and direct them to approach the Zilla Parishad.

4. There are several judgments and orders passed by the Bombay High Court in such cases in the light of the judgments delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syed Abdul Qadir and others Vs. State of Bihar and others - (2009) 3 SCC 475 and State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others - (2015) 4 SCC 334. This Court has also considered the tendency of employers in extracting written undertakings from the employees at the stroke of their retirement vide the judgment delivered dated 14.03.2024 in Writ Petition No.2810 of 2024 (Vijaya Khandu Tayade Vs. the State of Maharashtra and others) and Writ Petition No.2863 of 2024 (Asha Dhanraj Nimbalkar Vs. the State of Maharashtra and others). It would be apposite to reproduce paragraph Nos. 4 to 7 hereunder:-

7. Taking into account that these Petitioners were not involved in any mischief, fraud or deceit in orchestrating their wrongful pay revision, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syed Abdul Qadir vs. State of Bihar and others, 2009 (3) SCC 475 and State of Punjab and other vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. (2015) 4 SCC 334 = AIR 2015 SC 696, would apply to these cases."

5. It is undisputed that no fraud or ulterior motives have been attributed to the conduct of the Petitioners. It is also not the 6 of 8 (( 7 )) 5-WP-6436-2024 case of the Zilla Parishad that they were instrumental in manipulating their pay scales and allotting one extra increment in their favour. The learned Advocate for the Zilla Parishad has canvassed that the Zilla Parishad should be given an opportunity to verify as to whether any of these Petitioners were actually working in the tribal/PESA area.

6. The learned Advocate for the Petitioners counters the said submission on the basis of the pleadings on oath in the Petitions and further submits that barring Taluka and District Nandurbar, all other Talukas in District Nandurbar, fall in the tribal/PESA areas and all these Petitioners were working in such tribal/PESA areas. They were paid the one step extra increment only because they were working in tribal/PESA areas.

7. In the light of the above, the law laid down in Syed Abdul Qadir (supra) and Rafiq Masih (supra), would be applicable to the case of the Petitioners. On the issue of the undertaking, this Court has already concluded that an undertaking extracted at the stroke of retirement, is taking advantage of the helplessness of such Petitioners. They are at the verge of the retirement and at the time of calculating their retiral benefits, an undertaking is extracted. There are instances 7 of 8 (( 8 )) 5-WP-6436-2024 when the Petitioners have approached this Court as the employers have not released the retiral benefits, since the Petitioners did not accede to the demand of an amount.