1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2176 OF 1996 Suresh Bhagwan Bagul of Dhule, Indian Inhabitant, residing at Subhash Colony, Shirpur, Dist. Dhule. .... PETITIONERS V E R S U S 1. Director of Municipal Administration, Maharashtra State having his office at New Administrative Building 15th Floor, Opp. Mantralaya, Bombay. 2. Shirpur Warwade Municipal Council, through its Chief Officer, having office at Shirpur, Dist. Dhule. .... RESPONDENTS Mr. P.M.Shah, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. A.B.Girase, Advocate for respondent no. 2. Mr. V.D.Rakh, Assistant Govt. Pleader for State. CORAM : B.R.GAVAI & S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 30/6/2010 2 ORAL JUDGMENT : [ PER - B.R. GAVAI, J. ] 1. The petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the communication dated 19/5/1992 and 2/6/1992 issued by respondent no. 1, thereby reducing the pay scale granted to the petitioner by the Municipal Council. 2. It is further to be noted that even on merits, the action of the respondent in reducing the pay scale is not sustainable in law. The post of the Administrator, for the first time, accorded for Shirpur Municipal Council vide order dated 17/12/1982. Since the said Municipal Council is ‘ B ’ Class, the pay scale provided for the said post was Rs. 500 – Rs. 900/-. However, it appears that the Director of Municipal Administration accepting the proposal of the Municipal Council, had sanctioned higher pay scale of Rs. 600 – Rs. 1150/- as a special case. Taking this aspect into consideration, the Municipal council had passed a resolution and proposed to grant the benefits of 4th pay commission to its employees. Since the petitioner’s pay scale was Rs. 600 – Rs. 1150/-, it had decided to grant corresponding increase in the scale of Rs. 2000 – Rs. 3500/-. However, it appears that the Director of Municipal Administration taking the scale of the petitioner to be in scale of Rs. 500 – Rs. 900/-, directed approval to grant payment in the scale of Rs. 1640 – Rs. 2900/-. It appears that respondent o. 2 while granting said pay scale, failed to take into 3 consideration the order dated 27/3/1988, wherein higher pay scale was granted to the petitioner as a special case. This error also appears to be apparent from the communication at page no. 54, wherein it is stated that since the pay scale for Administrative Officer in ‘ B ’ Class Municipal Council was Rs. 500- Rs. 900/-, corresponding pay scale was granted to Rs. 1640 – Rs. 2900/-. It is thus clear that the authority has failed to take into consideration that vide order dated 27/3/1988, higher pay scale of Rs. 600 – Rs. 1150/- was granted to the petitioner as a special case. 3. It thus appear that the respondents – authorities while granting lower pay scale to the petitioner, have failed to take into consideration that they themselves have granted higher pay scale. 4. In that view of the matter, the impugned action is not sustainable in law. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause ‘ A ’. However, there shall be no order as to costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA ] [ B.R. GAVAI ] JUDGE JUDGE knp/WP 2176.96