(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 3773 OF 1994 Shri S.V. Hampras, Age : Major, Occupation : Retired Tax Superintendent, Municipal Council, Beed, R/o. Kale Galli, Beed. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra (through Collector, Beed). 2. The Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, as Regional Director of Municipal Administration, Aurangabad. 3. The Municipal Council, Beed (through its Chief Officer). 4. The Accountant General (A.& E.)-II, Nagpur. 5. The Director of Municipal Administration, Maharashtra State, Mumbai. .. Respondents. ....................... (2) Mr. R.S. Deshmukh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.B. Chaudhary, Additional Government Pleader, for respondent nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5. Mr. A.N. Neharkar, Advocate, holding for Mr. G.K. Thigale, Advocate, for respondent no.3. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 28TH JUNE 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 23rd February 1993, Exhibit "I", vide which the petitioner was informed by the office of respondent no.4, that his pensionary claims are being determined on the basis of un- revised pay scale and the revised scale would be made applicable, as soon as, clarification from the Director of Municipal Administration is received. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent nos.1 to 3, to send clarification to the respondent no.4. 2. It is the contention of the petitioner, that the pensionary benefits which are granted to the petitioner, in the (3) pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600, are erroneously granted and, as a matter of fact, the petitioner should have been granted pensionary benefits in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900. 3. Mr. R.S. Deshmukh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that at the time of retirement itself, the petitioner was receiving salary in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 and, as such, the determination pension payable to the petitioner, on a lower pay scale, is not permissible. He further submits that in view of the Government Resolution dated 9th December 1996, for the post held by the petitioner, pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 has been made applicable and, therefore, the action of the respondents, in determining the pension on the basis of pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600, is not permissible. 4. Admittedly, the post on which the petitioner is appointed, is a post covered under Section 76 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965. It can, thus, be clearly seen that for determining the service conditions, including the pay scale to be made applicable to the post held by the petitioner, approval of the Director of Municipal Administration was a pre-requisite. From the orders issued by the Director of Municipal Administration, dated 31st January 1994, it would reveal that the revised pay scale has been granted to the petitioner, of Rs. 1400-2600. (4) 5. Vide order dated 31st January 1994, issued by the Directorate of Municipal Administration, though it is revealed that a revised pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600 was made applicable, the subsequent order which is issued on 9th December 1996, which is issued in continuation of the order dated 31st January 1994, a revised pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 has been provided for the post of Octroi Superintendent. Perusal of the order dated 9th December 1996 would reveal that it is in continuation of the order dated 31st January 1994. It further appears that vide the orders issued by the Directorate of Municipal Administration, the post of Tax Superintendent initially was in the pay scale of Rs. 395-800. It further appears that subsequently the pay scale of the said post was revised to Rs. 500-900. It has been changed to Rs. 1640-2900 in the pay revision. It appears that the Municipal Council was correct in paying salary to the petitioner, in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900, vide order dated 9th December 1996. It appears that the earlier mistake committed by the Director of Municipal Administration has been rectified and the pay scale of the post held by the petitioner has been brought to Rs. 1640-2900. 6. We, therefore, find that the petitioner was entitled to the pensionary benefits by taking his pay scale as Rs. 1640-2900. (5) 7. In the result, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to work out the pensionary benefits payable to the petitioner, by taking his pay scale on the date of retirement, as Rs. 1640-2900. The arrears, on account of the said pay scale, shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of six months from today. 8. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. However, parties shall bear their own costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp3773