1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.23 OF 2010 Abdul Khalil Abdul Rahim Age : 58 years, Occ : Service, R/o Kille Galli, Annabhau Sathe Nagar, Udgir, Tq. Udgir, Dist.Latur. ..Petitioner V/s 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Asst. Registrar, Co-operative Society, Udgir, Dist.Latur. 2. The District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Society, Latur, Dist.Latur. 3. The Administrator, A.P.M.C. Udgir, Dist.Latur. ..Respondents ......... Mr.G.D. Kale, Advocate for petitioner. Mr.D.R. Korade, A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr.A.N. Irpatgire, Advocate for respondent no.3. ........ (CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) DATE : 17th June, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing, at the stage of admission. 2. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the orders rendered by the respondent nos.2 and 3, whereby his extension in 2 service was restricted to six months period and he was not granted further extension as well as his pay was reduced to the consolidated amount of Rs.7,000/- instead of placing him in regular pay scale available to the post. 3. The petitioner was admittedly working on establishment of the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Udgir as an Accountant. He submitted an application dated 14th February, 2009 for grant of extension to him, as he was on the verge of retirement. His case was recommended by the A.P.M.C. for approval of extended service. The District Deputy Registrar, Co- operative Societies, Latur approved the extension for six months period between 01.04.2009 to 30.09.2009 though the A.P.M.C. had recommended the extension for one year. The extension was granted on consolidated pay of Rs.7,000/- without allowing continuation of the same pay scale. By letter dated 30th September, 2009 the Administrator removed the petitioner from service. The petitioner alleges that he has been wrongly denied further extension, though it was recommended by the elected body members of the A.P.M.C. He also alleges that his salary could not have been reduced. According to him, the action of the respondent nos.2 and 3 is outside the pale of the settled principles of Service Law. Consequently, he seeks indulgence of this Court to set-right 3 the wrong committed by the respondent nos.2 and 3. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and the learned A.G.P. 5. There is no question of granting further extension to the petitioner because it is not a matter of right. The petitioner would have retired from service on 01.04.2009 and was continued in accordance with the relevant Rules by the earlier elected body of the A.P.M.C. vide resolution dated 14.02.2009. The resolution no. 10(4) was unanimously passed and was forwarded to the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Latur for the purpose of approval. The approval was granted only for six months as enumerated in the letter of the District Deputy Registrar. The District Deputy Registrar was not under obligation to approve the proposal, and therefore, the petitioner has no statutory or any other right to stake claim on the post for continuation after approved period of six months. 6. So far as the payment of consolidated salary of Rs. 7,000/- is concerned, it is quite true that the petitioner did not challenge the order of the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies soon after the consolidated salary of Rs.7,000/- was approved. It does not mean that he could be paid anything less 4 than what was the last pay drawn at the time of extension of his service. It is important to note that the petitioner had not retired from service, and therefore, did continue to remain employee of the A.P.M.C. The case of the petitioner is not of reemployment but that of continuation of service due to the extension of period of superannuation. Nor it is the case of his employment on contractual basis. The settled principle of the service jurisprudence is that the pay can not be reduced without holding the person liable for reduction on account of any disciplinary action. The petitioner was therefore legally entitled to receive the same pay as it was a day before continuation of his service for the said period of six months. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is partly illegal and liable to be interfered with. 7. In the result, the Petition is partly allowed. The respondent nos.2 and 3 are directed to pay the difference of pay along with incidental payments like D.A. etc. to the petitioner for the period of six months i.e. the extended period of his service, as per the last pay drawn by him before date of the extension minus the consolidated payment. Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. (V.R.KINGAONKAR) JUDGE gas/wp23.2010