1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9664 OF 2009 1 The State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary Law & Judiciary Department Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032. 2 The State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary General Administration Department Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032 3 The Member Secretary Maharashtra State, Law Commission having its office at Barrack No.13, Free Press Journal Marg, Mumbai 400 021. ...Petitioners. Vs. 1 Shri Rudrappa Jagannath Wani Aged-adult, Occ: Government Service, (on Contractual basis) as a Reporter In the office of Maharashtra State Law Commission, Mumbai ...Respondent. Mr.S.K.Nair, Spl. Counsel with Mr.A.I. Patel, AGP For the Petitioners. CORAM : F.I.REBELLO & J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATED : 9th December , 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT: ( Per Ferdino I. Rebello, J.) 1 Rule. Heard forthwith. 2 2 The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the learned Tribunal dated 2.3.2009 whereby the learned Tribunal directed petitioner herein to pay to the respondent remuneration in term of the G.R. dated 15th February, 1995. While passing the order, the learned Tribunal relied upon the statement made on behalf of the petitioner before the learned Tribunal that G.R. dated 15th February, 1995 would be applicable. The learned Tribunal also noted that in the case of another employee, Shri V.W.Meher who is also working with the State Law Commission, G.R. of 15th February, 1995 was made applicable. Reference was also made to the case of Mr.Gaikwad and Mr.Desai. However, both these persons are not working with the State Law Commission. In the light of that, the learned Tribunal found that action of the petitioner was arbitrary and accordingly, allowed the said application. The State being aggrieved by the said order, has preferred the present petition. 3 The State Government by the G.R. dated 25.10.2000 established the State Law Commission and also created 9 posts with pay-scales as set out therein. The said G.R. of 25.10.2000 was thereafter substituted by the G.R. of 25th July, 2006. By this G.R. so far as 9 posts, which were earlier created , remuneration was revised ranging 3 from Rs.3100/- in the category of peon to Rs.9800/- in the category of reporter. Respondent was appointed as Reporter on contract basis by the Government by the G.R. of 21st November, 2006. Letter of appointment specifically states that he is appointed pursuant to the G.Rs. referred earlier and that he would be entitled to honorarium of Rs.9800/- and the appointment is purely on contract basis and can be cancelled by the either party by giving one month’s prior notice. 4 In the course of his contract of service, it appears that respondent came across G.R. of 15th February, 1995. Clause 3 of the said G.R. is relevant and it reads as follows: “3) The person i.e. retired government officers / employee appointed on the contract basis should be paid remuneration on the basis of the salary derived by him at the time of his retirement minus pension. However, such remuneration payable for appointment on contract basis should not exceed the optimum limit of the pay scale available for the post on which such appointment is made.” It was the case of the Respondent that considering this G.R., Respondent should be paid remuneration in terms of G.R. of 15th February, 1995. In his Original Application filed with the learned Tribunal, this was his basic contention. The respondent also referred to the case of Shri V.W.Meher, who was being paid not in terms of the G.R. under which respondent was paid but in terms of G.R. dated 15.2.1995. 4 5 Petitioner herein filed reply and thereafter additional reply. It was the contention that the respondent was governed by the G.R. of 2006 and not G.R. of 1995. In so far as the case of Mr. Meher is concerned, it was pointed out that the post of Law Research Officer against which Shri V.W.Meher was appointed was not established by the G.R., which we have referred to earlier and as there was no fixed pay for the said post and as such the G.R. dated 15.2.1995 was made applicable. 6 Question for consideration is whether the Respondent will be governed by the G.R. of 1995. G.R. of 1995 covers a class of contract employees. However, in so far as the Law Commission is concerned, the State Government has specifically by the G.R. of 25th October, 2000 referred to 9 posts. Earlier 9 posts were created which included post of Law Research Officer in the pay-scale of Rs.10,000-325-15,200. While the judgment was being dictated, our attention was invited to another G.R. dated 2nd November, 2006. This G.R. includes the post of Law Research Officer, which was also included in the G.R. of 25th October, 2000 in the pay-scale of 10,000-325-15200. However, in the G.R. of 2nd November, 2006 honorarium was Rs.6,000/-, i.e., lesser than the pay- scale of the respondent, who holds the post of reporter and who in the 5 G.R. of 25th October, 2000 carried pay-scale of Rs.8000-275-13,500. 7 No doubt, the learned Tribunal based on the fact that the Research Officer was considered in the G.R. of 1995 gave benefit of the said G.R. also to the respondent. On behalf of the petitioner, the learned counsel submits that assuming that wrong was committed by the petitioner that would not give a legal right to the Respondent to claim on that basis. 8 In our opinion, it is not necessary to consider all these aspects for the order to be passed. We are inclined in the instant case to set aside the present order and remand the matter back to the learned Tribunal for consideration on all aspects. Considering the respondent’s case is of discrimination, in stead of driving the respondent to another O.A., we grant liberty to the respondent to amend the O.A. and include other challenges. It will be open to the petitioner to file reply if application for amendment is moved and granted by the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal then to consider the issues afresh according to law. 9 Considering what has been pointed out the petitioner can take steps to suitably amend or modify the G.Rs. Rule made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. (J.H. BHATIA,J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) 6