1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGBAD. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of | coram, appearance, court’s orders | Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WRIT PETITION NO.3180/2007 ---------------------------------------------------- Shri H.M.Karwa holding for Shri G.V.Wani,Adv.for petitioner Shri N.B.Suryawanshi,Adv.for R.2. .... CORAM : NARESH.H.PATIL & N.D.DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 15TH MARCH, 2010. 1] Heard. 2] The petitioner was a daily wager working as Lab Technician with respondent no.2 Municipal Council, Savda, Tq. Savda, Dist.Jalgaon in the year 1990. On 31/3/1998, petitioner was appointed on regular basis in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2300. The post of Lab Technician was sanctioned in the year 2000. Petitioner was granted pay scale of 5th Pay Commission w.e.f. 1/11/2001. 3] Petitioner filed representation to the Deputy Director, Directorate of 2 Municipal Administration, Mumbai, for grant of benefits of 5th Pay Commission with retrospective effect. The said request was turned down by the Deputy Director, Directorate of Municipal Administration, Mumbai, vide communication dated 4/8/2001 (Exh.D). 4] The petitioner now prayed for directions to the respondents, to grant the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 as per the Government Resolution dated 5/1/1999 annexed with the Writ Petition as Exh.A, to the present petitioner. 5] The learned counsel submits that the State has implemented the 5th Pay Commission report from 1/1/1996 and the pay scale shown against the post of Lab Technician was Rs.5000-8000, therefore, the petitioner prayed for the same benefits. It was pointed out by the learned counsel that the Municipal Council had passed resolution on 29/5/2000 to implement 5th Pay Commission Report from 1/1/1996. 6] The respondent no.3 filed affidavit in reply. Affidavit in Rejoinder was filed 3 by the petitioner. It was submitted by respondent no.3 that the Government Resolution annexed at Exh.A was not applicable to the petitioner, as she was employee of Municipal Council. Reliance was placed on the Judgement delivered by Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.6480/1999 dated 23/1/2006. 7] The learned counsel for the Municipal Council submits that the petitioner was a daily wager and after she was regularised, the petitioner was awarded pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 from 1/1/2001. In the facts of the case, petitioner cannot be awarded the same pay scale with retrospective effect from 1/1/1996. 8] We find that the post of Lab Technician was sanctioned in the year 2000. Earlier the petitioner was working as daily wager. In the facts of the case, we find that the petitoner would be entitled to a regular pay scale after the post was sanctioned. Admittedly the petitioner is getting pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 from 1/1/2001. 4 9] At an earlier stage, petitioner’s representation was rejected by the Deputy Director of Municipal Administration, Mumbai on 4/8/2001 but the petitioner chose to file this Writ Petition after 6 years. 10] Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the reply filed, petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed in the petition, Petition is accordingly dismissed. (N.D.DESHPANDE) ( NARESH.H.PATIL) JUDGE JUDGE umg/wp3274-07