1 FARAD CONSTITUTION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION (W) No. 1371/2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4841/2006 (Zilla Parishad, Nagpur ..vs.. Arun Bhaskarrao Aaradhe 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:- B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE:- DECEMBER 01, 2009 The application is being considered since last few dates, as court found that the respondent No.1 employee was ready and willing to settle the matter once for all. The petitioner Zilla Parishad has also filed an Affidavit on 30/11/2009 pointing out the amount, which can be legally released by it to the respondent No.1. Learned Advocate Shri M.M.Sudame with Advocate Shri M.V.Mohokar for petitioners argue that as respondent No.1 was absent from 1997 till 2007, the petitioners are not in a position to give any benefit for said period to him. Learned Advocate Shri S.S.Ghate for respondent No.1 pointed out that petitioners should have brought respondent No.1 on C.R.T. in semi-skilled category as Clerk (Typist), but he was deliberately given work as ‘Mazdoor’ and therefore, the controversy 2 was taken in 1997 itself before the Industrial Court, Nagpur. He states that the respondent No.1 was ready and willing to work as semi-skilled employee and as work was not being given to him, he could not perform his duties and has been marked absent for no fault on his part. However, he states that he has instructions to accept the payment if such period of absence is condoned by releasing increments notionally for said period and by considering it as continuous service for the purposes of gratuity and other retirement benefits. Learned counsel for petitioners are opposing this statement. They contend that as per law, the relief in relation to the period from 1997 to 2007 cannot be given to respondent No.1. They pointed out that respondent No.1 never moved any application for appropriate interim direction before the Industrial Court after 1997 till 2003. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 states that when the position became clear and respondent No.1 was advised to move the application, the application was moved by him. In view of the affidavit dated 30/11/2009 filed on behalf of petitioners, it is apparent that respondent is getting the semi-skilled status from 01/6/1991. It is also apparent that the difference on account of said change till 04/2/1997 and thereafter from 05/2/1997 till March, 2009 is being paid to him. 3 The affidavit also states that he has been fixed as per 6th Pay Commission as on 01/4/2009 and his arrears till date worked out to Rs.11,907/-. All these arrears are being paid/credited to his account after necessary financial/administrative approval, as per the scheme of the Government in this respect. Therefore, I do not find it necessary to go into the other details of the controversy. Admittedly, the employment with the petitioner is public employment and the learned Industrial Court has granted the relief to respondent No.1 from 20/1/2003. In these circumstances, earlier, learned counsel for respondent No.1 had upon instructions, made a statement that respondent No.1 is ready and willing to give up 75% of the back wages. Today, upon instructions, in order to settle the controversy once for all, the learned counsel states that the Court may pass appropriate orders as requested by him above in the beginning. The petitioners are accordingly directed to fix the salary of respondent No.1 in 6th Pay Scale after calculating the notional increments to be released from 01/6/1991 till date. The incremental arrears in that respect shall not be released to him. His current pay shall be stepped up accordingly and benefit of said revised pay from 01/01/2010 shall be released in his 4 monthly salary from January, 2010 onwards Necessary exercise in this respect be completed by 31st March, 2010. The petitioners shall also treat the entire period of service of respondent No.1 from 01/6/1991 till date as continuous service, without any break for the purposes of gratuity and other retirement benefits. The impugned order dated 23/2/2006 of learned Industrial Court, Nagpur is modified to the extent mentioned above. Subject to this, the writ petition is partly allowed and disposed of accordingly. Rule accordingly. No order as to costs. JUDGE Diwale.