Dixit 1 WP-1865-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1865 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Petitioners V/s. Rudrapa Jagannath Wani ... Respondent Mr. A.B. Vagyani, A.G.P., for the Petitioners. Mr. P.M. Patil for the Respondent. CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. DATE : 23 RD NOVEMBER, 2011. P.C. : 1. This Petition impugns the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, (“the Tribunal” for short), on 2nd March, 2009, thereby allowing Original Application No.524 of 2008 filed by the present Respondent. 2. The Respondent was holding the post of “Reporter” with the Maharashtra Legislature Secretariat, Vidhan Bhavan, Mumbai, till 31st January, 2006 and in the pay scale of 10,000-325-15,200. At the time of retirement, he was drawing the Basic Pay of Rs.15,200/-. He came to be reemployed in the very same post from 1st March, 2006 to 31st August, 2006 and his pay was fixed @ Rs.13,991/-. A fresh Dixit 2 WP-1865-11 order of reappointment was issued to the Respondent on 2nd February, 2006 for the very same post and the Respondent has been appointed in the Pay Scale of Rs.8,000-275-13,500 as per the G.R. dated 25th October, 2000. However, his Basic Pay was fixed @ Rs.9,800/-. As per the Respondent, his Basic Pay ought to have been fixed @ Rs.13,500/-, instead of Rs.9,800/- and, in support of his claim, he cited the cases of Shri V.W. Meher and Shri A.J. Desai. He claimed that the G.R. dated 15th February, 1995 was not valid. The Tribunal in the impugned order has directed to fix the Basic Pay of the Respondent @ Rs.13,500/- and pay him the arrears from 2nd February, 2006. 3. Shri K.P. Bakshi, Principal Secretary (Services), General Administration Department, Government of Maharashtra, has filed affidavit-in-reply and has stated that the Respondent has already been discontinued on 13th October, 2011. 4. So far as the challenge to the impugned order is concerned, we do not find any merit. Clause (3) of the G.R. dated 15th February, 1995 states that a retired Government employee, if reappointed, will be eligible for pay drawn minus pension and, if this is followed, the Respondent’s pay would come to Rs.13,991/-. However, the pay scale in which he came to be appointed is Rs.8,000-275-13,500 and, therefore, the highest Basic Pay that could be offered is Rs.13,500/-. The contention of the Government that Clause (3) of the G.R. dated 15th February, Dixit 3 WP-1865-11 1995 applies to the Petitioner’s case has been rejected by the Tribunal and, in our opinion, rightly so. The view taken by the Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity. 5. The Petition is dismissed. 6. Rule discharged, but without any order as to costs. [SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.] [B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.]