(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 992 OF 1994 Eranna Vithalrao Mamilwad, Age : Major, Occupation : Service, R/o. Parli Vaijnath, Taluka : Parli, District : Beed. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Maharashtra State Electricity Board, through its Member Secretary (Administration), Prakashgad, Bandra (E), Bombay - 400 051. 3. The Chief Engineer (Hydro), M.S.E.B., Hongkong Bank Building, 3rd floor, M.G. Road, Hutatma Chowk, Fort, Bombay - 400 023. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. S.B. Talekar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. N.B. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.1. (2) Mr. Sanjay Mundhe, Advocate, for respondent nos.2 and 3. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 7TH JULY 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. The petition has been filed by the present petitioner for quashing and setting aside the order dated 17th May 1990, fixing the basic pay of the petitioner as Rs. 1510/- as on 31-1-1990. The petitioner has further sought a direction to the respondent nos.2 and 3, to fix the pay of the petitioner as on 30-1-1990, in the manner prescribed under Annexure-III to the order of appointment dated 17-1-1990. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as under : The petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer in the office of the Superintending Engineer, Hydro Circle, Mumbai, in the year 1987. At the relevant time, the Hydro Circles were under the Irrigation Department of the Government of (3) Maharashtra. In the year 1990, the said Hydro Circles were abolished and the said Hydro Circles were taken over by the respondent, Maharashtra State Electricity Board (For short, "M.S.E.B."). Consequently, the services of the employees working in the said Hydro Circles were absorbed in the M.S.E.B. The petitioner's services were absorbed vide order dated 17th January 1990. The fixation of pay, on absorption, was to be made as per Annexure III of the order directing absorption of the petitioner. It is the contention of the petitioner, that on absorption, the petitioner's basic pay came to be reduced in contravention of the stipulation in Annexure III and, therefore, the present petition. 3. Mr. S.B. Talekar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that after absorption, the service conditions of the petitioner could not be changed to his detriment. He submits that the pay of the petitioner was required to be fixed as per Annexure III to the order of absorption. He further submits that, however, erroneously his basic pay has been reduced, thereby causing huge monetary loss to the petitioner. 4. Mr. Sanjay Mundhe, learned Counsel appearing for respondent nos.2 and 3, on the contrary, submits that as a matter of fact, the pay, which the petitioner was getting in his original (4) Department, is not only protected but he is being paid higher scale. He, therefore, submits that no case for interference is made out. 5. Undisputedly, the petitioner's absorption with the respondent, M.S.E.B., was issued vide order dated 17th January 1990. Vide the said order, though the petitioner was considered as a fresh appointee working with the respondent, M.S.E.B., however, in so far as his pay is concerned, the same was protected. It will be necessary to refer to Annexure III to the order of absorption of the petitioner, which deal with the method of pay fixation and fitment of pay to arrive at Basic Pay in the Board. The same reads thus :- " The Board shall protect their emoluments i.e. pay + D.A. only. For the purposes of fixation of pay and fitment of pay in the pay scales prescribed by the Board, pay of the employees in the respective scales shall be fitted and fixed in the following manner :- 1) An amount equal to the dearness allowance payable in the Board for the month of November 1986 shall be deducted from the total emoluments/wages, an employee is drawing with the Government. (5) 2) On deducting the Dearness Allowance from the total emoluments/wages as given in (1) above, if the balance amount is less than the minimum of the pay scale prescribed by the Board, the pay shall be fixed at the minimum of the pay scale prescribed by the Board. 3) On deducting the dearness allowance from the total emoluments/wages, if the balance amount is more than the minimum of the pay scale prescribed by the Board, the pay should be fixed at that stage, if that is a stage in the pay scale, and if there is no such stage in the pay scale, the pay shall be fixed at the stage next below the balance amount so commuted and the difference, if any, shall be shown and paid as personal pay to the employees till his next increment becomes due when his personal pay will be absorbed in the basic pay. " It can, thus, be seen that the basic pay of the petitioner was very much protected. Even otherwise, it is a settled law that service condition of an employee cannot be changed to his detriment. 6. Perusal of Annexure III to the order of absorption of the petitioner, dated 17th January 1990, would reveal that an amount equal to the dearness allowance payable in the Board for (6) the month of November 1986, shall be deducted from the total emoluments/wages, an employee is drawing with the Government. It is further provided that on deducting the Dearness Allowance from the total emoluments/wages as given above, if the balance amount is less than the minimum of the pay scale prescribed by the Board, the pay shall be fixed at the minimum of the pay scale prescribed by the Board. It is further provided that on deducting the dearness allowance from the total emoluments/wages, if the balance amount is more than the minimum of the pay scale prescribed by the Board, the pay should be fixed at that stage in the pay scale or if there is no stage in the pay scale, it has to be fixed next below the balance amount so commuted and the difference, if any, shall be shown as personal pay to the employees till his next increment becomes due when his personal pay will be absorbed in the basic pay. It can, thus, be clearly seen that the said Annexure III provides that after deducting the Dearness Allowance from the basic pay, the employee is required to be given higher amount, either at par with the pay scale prescribed by the M.S.E.B. or the one which he was getting prior to his absorption. 7. The last drawn salary of the petitioner, in the earlier establishment, was Rs. 1983/-. The Dearness Allowance, which (7) is prescribed for the post in question, as per the M.S.E.B. service conditions, was Rs. 574/-. If the amount of Rs. 574/- towards Dearness Allowance is excluded, the amount would come at Rs. 1409/-. However, for the said cadre, the basic pay, as provided under the M.S.E.B. service conditions, was Rs. 1510/-. The petitioner was entitled to a better of the two. Accordingly, the M.S.E.B. had fixed his basic pay at Rs. 1510/- and Dearness Allowance of Rs. 574/-, totaling Rs. 2084/-. 8. It can, thus, be seen that, as a matter of fact, the salary, which was paid to the petitioner, was more than which he was receiving in the earlier establishment. In that view of the matter, we do not see that any illegality is committed by the respondents so as to warrant interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 9. In the result, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/992wp