1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.243 OF 2009 Shrimati Shaila Mahadev Mehtre ..Petitioner Vs. The State of maharashtra and ors. ..Respondents Mr.A.M.Joshi, for petitioner. Mr.V.S.Gokhale, AGP for respondents­State. CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE : 1st APRIL, 2010. P.C. : Heard. 2] By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed that the respondent may be directed to give higher pay scale to her w.e.f. year 1987. The petitioner was serving with the respondent no.4. The petitioner retired from service by way of superannuation on 30 th June, 2006. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner was entitled to get higher pay scale in the year 1987 when she had completed 12 years of service, as, according to the Government Resolution, if an employee completes 12 years satisfactory service, he/she is entitled to get higher pay scale which was not given to the petitioner. 3] It is required to be noted that the petitioner had tendered her resignation from service in the year 1979. Thereafter, it seems that the District Education Officer allowed the representation made by the petitioner and directed the 243­09.sxw 2 Management to reinstate the petitioner in service, and accordingly, the petitioner was reinstated in service by the Management since the year 1989. The petitioner while taking advantage of the aforesaid order of reinstatement, never made any grievance at the time of reinstatement that she should be placed in the higher pay scale, as according to the petitioner she was entitled for the higher pay scale from the year 1987. After being reinstated she started making representations for getting the higher pay scale. In this behalf, it is required to be noted that even as per the Government Resolution, which is explained by the learned AGP in the affidavit­in­reply, a person is entitled to get higher pay scale provided that such person has completed twelve year’s qualifying service and such employee has rendered the service satisfactorily. 4] In the present case, as per the letter dated 31 st January, 2007 of the District Education Officer it was found that the service of the petitioner was not satisfactory and there was adverse entry in her service record. In view of the same, even otherwise, the petitioner is not entitled to get benefit of higher pay scale. It is also required to be noted that the petitioner is claiming the benefit of higher pay scale w.e.f. the year 1987, however, the petitioner has accepted the reinstatement in the year 1989 without making any grievance regarding the higher pay scale. This petition is filed in the year 2009 after considerable time since the reinstatement of the petitioner in service. The claim of the petitioner 243­09.sxw 3 suffers from delay and latches. Therefore, in our view, this is not a case in which any relief regarding re­fixation of pension of the petitioner on the basis of higher pay scale can be given. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is getting the pension on the basis of the pay scale which she was drawing at the time of retirement. We do not find any substance in giving higher pay scale to the petitioner and to fix her pension accordingly. 5] Writ Petition is, accordingly, rejected. [R.G. KETKAR, J.] [P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.] 243­09.sxw