1 aswp-6407-11 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6407 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Petitioners Vs. Shri Kishor Vitthal Thakur .. Respondent Mr. A.B. Vagyani, AGP petitioners. Ms. S.P. Manchekar for respondent. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. NOVEMBER 15, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard Mr. Vagyani, the learned AGP for the petitioners. The petitioners – State of Maharashtra is aggrieved by the order dated 16/12/2010 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal allowing O.A. No. 1374 of 2009 filed by the respondent (original applicant). By the said order the petitioners have been directed to fix the respondent’s salary in the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 (old pay scale) under the Assured Career Progression Scheme from the date he joined at Mantralaya. 2. The respondent was appointed as a Junior Clerk on 1/9/1983 with the office of the Commissioner, Dairy Development Department on temporary basis and his service was regularized from 1/12/1994. As per the 2 aswp-6407-11 order dated 27/8/2007 he was held to be eligible for grant of benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme but the post on which the respondent was to be given the said benefit was abolished on. On 13/3/2008 the respondent was appointed on the post of Clerk in Mantralaya as he was found to be surplus in the earlier establishment. Respondent also claimed that his juniors from the office of the Commissioner-Dairy Development Department, who were found surplus earlier, were granted the benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme and were placed in the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000. When he joined at Mantralaya, he was offered the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000. 3. The application was opposed by the present petitioners pointing out that the respondent was already granted the benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme with effect from 1/12/2006 and unless he would complete further service of 12 years, he would not be entitled for the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000. The Tribunal noted that the respondent’s juniors who were declared surplus on the earlier establishment, were drawing the higher pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 when the respondent was absorbed in Mantralaya and, therefore, directed to give the same pay scale to the respondent by following the principle of parity in pay scale for the same post and the respondent ought to be brought on par with his juniors. 4. Mr. Vagyani, the learned AGP, reiterated that once the respondent was given the benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme with effect from 1/12/2006 he would not be entitled for the second benefit at Mantralaya and, therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal requires 3 aswp-6407-11 interference by this court. 5. We do not find any substance in the challenge raised in this petition against the impugned order. Firstly, even by filing a sur-rejoinder, the present petitioners could not place before the Tribunal any document to support the contentions that the order passed on 1/12/2006 was implemented and the respondent was the beneficiary of the Assured Career Progression Scheme before he was declared surplus. In fact, the order granting the said benefit was passed on 27/8/2007 and by then the respondent was already declared surplus. In addition, when the respondent’s juniors have admittedly been drawing the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000 when he was absorbed in Mantralaya, the Tribunal was justified in following the principle of parity in pay scales. 6. Hence, on both the counts we do not find any error apparent on the face of the record committed by the Tribunal and, therefore, this petition must fail at the threshold. The same is hereby rejected. (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)