1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 4094/2010 (Manohar Narayan Shile .vs. Zilla Parishad Yavatmal and another ) with WRIT PETITION NO. 4488/2010 (Narayan Govindrao Gavhane .vs. Zilla Parishad Yavatmal and another ) with WRIT PETITION NO. 4507/2010 (Tryambak Amrut Kamle .vs. Zilla Parishad Yavatmal and another ) with WRIT PETITION NO. 4508/2010 (Giridhar Raghunath Bindod .vs. Zilla Parishad Yavatmal and another ) with WRIT PETITION NO. 4511/2010 (Pralhad Balkrushna Lakde .vs. Zilla Parishad Yavatmal and another ) with WRIT PETITION NO. 4512/2010 (Ashok Marotrao Mule .vs. Zilla Parishad Yavatmal and another ) with WRIT PETITION NO. 4546/2010 (Sahadeo Tulsiram Ahir .vs. Zilla Parishad Yavatmal and another ) with WRIT PETITION NO. 4663/2010 (Arun Shankarrao Sajjanwar .vs. Zilla Parishad Yavatmal and another ) with WRIT PETITION NO. 4739/2010 (Vitthal Nathuji Gande .vs. Zilla Parishad Yavatmal and another ) with WRIT PETITION NO. 4782/2010 (Prabhakar Bhaskarrao Ghate .vs. Zilla Parishad Yavatmal and another ) 2 with WRIT PETITION NO. 5380/2010 (Deorao B. Nawathe .vs. Zilla Parishad Yavatmal and another ) with WRIT PETITION NO. 5381/2010 (Prakash S. Ghodekar .vs. Zilla Parishad Yavatmal and another ) with WRIT PETITION NO.5382/2010 (Shrawan Laxman Wani .vs. Zilla Parishad Yavatmal and another ) with WRIT PETITION NO. 5383/2010 (Bhimrao Narayan Hatware .vs. Zilla Parishad Yavatmal and another ) with WRIT PETITION NO. 5384/2010 (Suhas Nilkantrao Deshpande .vs. Zilla Parishad Yavatmal and another ) with WRIT PETITION NO. 1981/2011 (Namdeo Kamlakar Dhole .vs. Zilla Parishad Yavatmal and another ) with WRIT PETITION NO. 1982/2011 (Ramrao Mahadeo Ledange .vs. Zilla Parishad Yavatmal and another ) with WRIT PETITION NO.2006/2011 (Bhaurao Tanba Ghaywan .vs. Zilla Parishad Yavatmal and another ) with WRIT PETITION NO.4768 /2010 ( Shalik Vistari Madavi .vs. Zilla Parishad Chandrapur and another ) with WRIT PETITION NO.4773/2010 ( Bapurao Mahadeorao Kshirsagar .vs. Zilla Parishad Chandrapur and another ) 3 with WRIT PETITION NO. 5542/2010 (Balkrishna Baliram Bhatkar .vs. Zilla Parishad Chandrapur and another ) with WRIT PETITION NO.5543/2010 (Dasharath Pochannaji Ijmankar .vs. Zilla Parishad Chandrapur and another ) with WRIT PETITION NO. 5544/2010 ( Sukhdeo Pandurang Gawande .vs. Zilla Parishad Chandrapur and another ) with WRIT PETITION NO.5545/2010 ( Shankar Ganpatrao Jilgilwar .vs. Zilla Parishad Chandrapur and another ) with WRIT PETITION NO.5546/2010 ( Manik Mahadeorao Nanotkar .vs. Zilla Parishad Chandrapur and another ) with WRIT PETITION NO. 5487/2010 ( Vinayak Shankarrao Chandekar .vs. Zilla Parishad Chandrapur and another ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Shri P.D. Meghe, Advocate for Petitioners in all petitions. Shri R.D. Tajne, Advocate for Respondent/Zilla Parishad Yavatmal in all petitions. Shri Sudame, Advocate for Respondent/Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur in all petitions. S/Shri A.S. Fulzele, J.B. Jaiswal, S.J. Jichkar and Smt. K.S. Joshi, AGPs for Respondent/State of Maharashtra CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATED : JUNE 14, 2011 We have heard Advocate Shri Meghe for all petitioners, Advocate Shri Tajne for Zilla Parishad, 4 Yavatmal and Advocate Shri Sudame with Advocate Shri Pendke for Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur. Respective learned AGPs have advanced arguments for State of Maharashtra in all the Petitions. 2. After hearing respective counsel, we find the controversy practically covered by judgment dated 27.1.2010 delivered by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1434/2009 in the matter of Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur. 3. Grievance before this Court is about releasing the next pay-scale of Rs.5500-9000 as released to their juniors on account of completion of 12 years’ service. 4. It is not in dispute that most of the petitioners have retired from services of respective Zilla Parishads either before 22.6.2007 or shortly thereafter. On said date respondent/State Government has approved grant of higher pay-scale to various stagnating cadres after putting in 12 years’ service. The cadres with which we are concerned are Mistri Grade I and Muster Clerk. The Government directed all Zilla Parishads to act accordingly and in terms thereof juniors of present petitioners who continued in service have been given benefit of that fitment. Petitioners claim same fitment on the ground of parity. 5. Shri Meghe points out that though some of the petitioners were not in employment on 22.6.2007, their juniors who continued in service have been given fitment from dates which are prior to the date of retirement of such petitioners. According to him initially decision in this respect was taken on 8.6.1995 and benefit in terms thereof has been given to all after 22.6.2007. He, therefore, states that when services 5 rendered by juniors after 8.6.1995 have been taken into account to find out whether they have completed period of 12 years’ or not, the services then rendered by the petitioners must also be looked into and their retirement is not relevant at all for the said purpose. He, therefore, contends that the denial of said fitment to others who have continued in service after 22.6.2007 is arbitrary. In this view of the matter, he has relied upon the above mentioned Division Bench judgment to urge that the directions as contained in para 21 of said judgment also need to be issued in present matter. He, however, points out that the order then considered was order dated 12.2.2008 and it is in relation to Zilla Parishad Chandrapur. In relation to Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal, said order is dated 3.5.2011. 6. Advocate Shri Tajne as also Advocate Shri Sudame are opposing the petitions. According to them the demand is misconceived. Shri Tajne argues that by Government Resolution, the posts of Mistri Grade I and Muster Clerk are merged with the cadre of Civil Engineering Assistant with direction to grant them pay- scale of Junior Engineer after completion of period of 12 years’ of service. According to him, therefore, presence of service of the incumbent in such matters on said date is essential and the benefit cannot be extended to retired employees. 7. Shri Tajne has also contended that in some petitions no demand has been made before filing the same. Shri Sudame states that in the matters of Zilla Parishad Chandrapur, the petitioners have chosen to approach this Court directly without making any 6 representation. He also adopts arguments of Advocate Shri Tajne and contends that this issue was not required to be gone into in Writ Petition No. 1434/2009. 8. Perusal of the judgment delivered in Writ Petition No. 1434/2009 reveals that the Division Bench there has considered a policy decision taken on 20.5.1999 whereby the cadre titled as “Civil Engineering Assistant” with the pay-scale of Rs. 1200-1800 was created with 406 posts each year from May, 2000 to May, 2004. On 7.11.2001 Government proposed and prescribed two-and-half months’ training to unqualified employees for considering them for grant of absorption in the cadre of Civil Engineering Assistant. Lateron those who had crossed 45 years’ of age, were exempt from such training and trade examination which was to follow thereafter. The judgment also shows that out of 406 posts, 76 posts were allotted to Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur. The petitioners there had retired in 2003. It is in this background that the directions as contained in para 21 of the said judgment were issued to Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur. 9. It is apparent that 12 years’ service to be looked into for entitlement of said pay-scale is definitely prior to 22.6.2007 and, therefore, superannuation of some of the petitioners prior to 22.6.2007 is not relevant. The perusal of decision dated 22.6.2007 shows that 12 years service as a Mistri Grade I or Muster Clerk has to be reckoned from the date of appointment on that posts and after completion of 12 years as such, the eligibility to higher pay-scale applicable i.e. pay- scale of Junior Engineer follows depending upon the 7 availability of said posts in year of completion of 12 years. In many cases, this completion may be much prior to the date of superannuation. In cases of Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal, as is apparent from order dated 4.4.2008, juniors are given said benefits from various dates between 1.10.1994 to 10.9.1998. Situation is not different in case of Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur. On these dates, petitioners before us were very much in service. Hence denial of benefit to them is highhanded and arbitrary. 10. The directions issued by earlier Division Bench in its judgment dated 27.1.2010 are as under:- “21. In the result, this Court orders as follows:- (I) The declinement of Respondent No.1 of petitioner’s candidature as is expressed through the Affidavit-in-Reply is struck down as unjustified. (II) Respondent no.1 is directed to consider thus case of the petitioner: (a) By ignoring the fact of :- (i) retirement, and (ii) lack of qualification of the petitioner. (b) consider the case of the petitioner based on eligibility of the petitioner for relaxation of qualification on the basis that on the relevant date, the petitioner has already crossed 45 years of age. (III) The petitioner be granted the benefit of scale of pay given to any one amongst the juniors to the petitioner to whom the benefit is given through the order dated 12th Feb,2008 [Annex. J to the petition], and should be given the all and same benefits as given to such junior 8 candidate who is similarly placed, and was given the benefit only because he was in the employment on the date of passing of order or allotment of posts.” 11. Here also very same directions can be issued as petitioners before us had already crossed 45 years’ of their age on 22.6.2007. The only question to be looked into is available number of posts with respective Zilla Parishads. It cannot be forgotten that their juniors have been accommodated against the available posts only. The judgment earlier delivered and mentioned supra shows that 76 posts were allocated to Zilla Parishad Chandrapur. It is not in dispute that 132 posts have been allocated to Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal. It is also to be noted that posts are created in phased manner from 2000 to 2004. 12. The facts clearly show that services rendered prior to 22.6.2007 by juniors of present petitioners who are still in service have been looked into and accordingly the benefit of pay-scale of Junior Engineer has been extended to them after completion of 12 years’ of service either as Mistri Grade I or Muster Clerk. Same treatment, therefore, needs to be extended to present petitioners. Accordingly we allow these petitions in terms of direction as contained in para 21 of the earlier judgment of this Court already reproduced supra. It is, however, clarified that in respect of the petitioners i.e. writ petitions against Zilla Parishad Yavatmal, the date “12.2.2008” appearing in para (III) thereof shall be read as “3.5.2011”. 13. The respective petitioners shall file 9 appropriate representation raising their claim with respective Zilla Parishad within period of four weeks from today and the respective Zilla Parishads shall thereafter proceed further to implement this judgment within further period of six weeks thereafter. 14. Writ petitions are thus allowed with no orders as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE halwai