1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 1872/2007 The Akola Municipal Corporation, through its Commissioner ...vs... Dr. Sou. Vimal w/o Trimbakrao Patil and another -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 26 th February, 2008 1. Heard Mr. Borkar with Mr. Malokar, Advocates for the petitioner, Mr. Mishra, Advocate for respondent No. 1 and Ms. Wandile, A.G.P. for respondent No. 2. 2. The petition takes exception to order of the Industrial Court under which the petitioner was directed not to deduct the salary of respondent No. 1 with further direction to continue to pay her by giving benefit of Fifth Pay Commission by fixing her salary as per rules. 3. Initially, respondent No. 1 was appointed as Medical Officer in the pay scale of Rs. 600-1150/-. The petitioner attempted to reduce her pay scale from Rs. 600-1150/- to Rs.365-760/- and respondent No. 1, thereafter, filed Complaint ULP No. 415/1992, which came 2 to be allowed on 06.07.1994 and the present petitioner was directed not to reduce pay scale of the petitioner. This order is never challenged by the petitioner. 4. Respondent No. 1, thereafter, granted corresponding pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/- as per Fourth Pay Commission with effect from 01.01.1986. The petitioner again attempted to reduce pay scale and effected recovery and, therefore, respondent No. 1 was constrained to approach the Industrial Court and the Industrial Court, by order impugned in the petition, directed the petitioner not to deduct or reduce salary of respondent No. 1 and continue to pay her benefit of Fifth Pay Commission by fixing her salary as per rules. 5. Respondent No. 1 by filing affidavit categorically made statement in para 5 that respondent No. 1 is ready and willing to accept the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/- with effect from 01.04.1992. 6. In my opinion, petitioner is estopped from contending that respondent No. 1 is not entitled to Pay 3 Scale of Rs.2200-4000/- in view of the fact that this pay scale is corresponding to earlier pay scale of Rs. 600-1150/-, which came to be protected by the Industrial Court by order dated 06.07.1994 passed in Complaint ULP No. 415/1992, which has attained finality. 7. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the petition. Needless to mention that the petitioner is at liberty to forward the proposal of respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 2 in this regard in accordance with law. 8. Since, respondent No. 1 made a statement that she is ready and willing to accept the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/-w.e.f. from 01.04.1992 the recovery of excess amount which is already effected from 1986 to 1992 will not be affected by the order impugned in the present petition. 9. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. JUDGE kahale