( 1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 4941 OF 1997 Gangaram Singh s/o. Devi Singh Chavan, Age : 58 years, Occupation : Service (Store Superintendent), M.S.E.B., Major Store, Osmanabad. .. Petitioner. versus 1. Maharashtra State Electricity Board, Prakash Gad, Bandra (East), Mumbai, through its Secretary. 2. The Technical Director (Stores), M.S.E.B., Prakash Gad, Bandra (East), Mumbai. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. H.A. Joshi, Advocate, holding for Mrs. Smita Deshpande, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. A.S. Shelke, Advocate, for respondent nos.1 and 2. ........................ ( 2) CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 13TH JULY 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. The petitioner has approached this Court, praying for a direction to the respondents, to grant benefit of G.O. 74, with effect from 13th February 1987 and give placement to the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs. 1275-65-2120 (unrevised) i.e. the pay scale of Stores Officer, and pay arrears of salary and other consequential benefits. 2. The petitioner initially came to be appointed as Lower Division Clerk on 24th January 1961. He was promoted as Upper Division Clerk on 29th September 1965. Thereafter, he was appointed as Stores Assistant on 6th October 1971. Since the petitioner could not be promoted to a higher post, the petitioner was given placement in the higher pay scale of Superintendent with effect from 1st April 1980. The petitioner was actually promoted as Stores Superintendent on 13th February 1981, on the basis of petitioner's claim of belonging to Vimukta Jati. However, since the respondents / authorities found that the claim of the petitioner was suspicious, the matter was referred to the learned District Magistrate and the learned District Magistrate invalidated the claim of the petitioner. Being ( 3) aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court and this Court has remitted back the matter to the competent authority for deciding claim of the petitioner afresh. 3. Mr. H.A. Joshi, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that in view of the General Order No.74, dated 30th April 1974, as amended from time to time, the petitioner was entitled for a higher pay scale of the Stores Superintendent, after completion of 6 years in the post of Stores Superintendent and, as such, the petitioner ought to have been given benefit from 13th February 1987 in the pay scale of Stores Officer. 4. Mr. A.S. Shelke, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents / authorities, on the contrary, submits that the petitioner's claim, of belonging to Vimukta Jati, was found to be invalid and, as such, his promotion dated 13th February 1981, stood recalled. He, therefore, submits that the petitioner is not entitled to higher pay scale since he has not actually worked in the cadre of Stores Superintendent. 5. For appreciating the rival submissions, it would be necessary to refer to General Order No.74, referred by the respondents, which reads thus : ( 4) " On the eve of the 14th Anniversary of the formation of Maharashtra, the Board by its Resolution No. 525, dated 30-4-1974, extended special benefit to such of the Board's Employees, who have remained on a given post for 10 year or more (including officiating service) without the advantage of promotion to a higher post or higher grade, for want of clear vacancies against which they can be promoted or because the cadre to which they belong provides no channel of promotion. Such employees will get higher grade, as personal to them provided they have got the necessary qualification and experience required for the higher grade. These benefits are applicable to employees on regular establishment upto and including the level of Divisional Accountant, Superintendent, Asstt. Engineer and equivalent categories. Detailed rules as approved by the Board in this behalf are embodied in Appendix-A for information and necessary action. " 6. It is not in dispute, that by the Correction Slip No.9, dated 6th May 1983, the period of 10 years, which was provided ( 5) in the General Order No.74, has been reduced to a period of 6 years, with effect from 1st April 1980. It is further to be noted that vide the said Correction Slip, the benefit, which was available to an employee only once in his career, has been increased to twice instead of one. It is further to be noted that this benefit is available to an employee who has not got promotion to a higher post for no fault of his own for want of a clear vacancy, as well as, where there is no promotional channel. 7. Vide the Correction Slip dated 3rd April 1990, it was provided that the higher grade on the first occasion shall be granted on completion of 6 years. However, in so far as the second benefit is concerned, it is required to be granted from the date of completion of 6 years reckoned from the date of absorption in the post of which the first benefit is granted or from the date of completion of 9 years reckoned from the date on which the first benefit was granted, whichever date is earlier. 8. Vide the Correction Slip No.16, dated 27th November 1990, the employees, desirous of having next higher grade under the provisions of General Order No.74, were required to give option. Admittedly, the petitioner has given option. 9. Apart from the question, as to whether the Correction ( 6) Slip No.15 would be applicable to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as, according to the Correction Slip No.9, dated 6th May 1983, the second benefit was applicable after a period of 6 years, we find, that even according to Correction Slip No.15, dated 3rd April 1990, the petitioner would be entitled to higher pay scale from 13th February 1987. 10. It is not in dispute, that the petitioner has been granted the first benefit of pay scale in the cadre of Stores Superintendent from 1st April 1980. It is also not in dispute, that the petitioner has been, in fact, working as Stores Superintendent with effect from 13th February 1981, and as such, he was continued to officiate on the said post till his superannuation on 31st October 1996. As such, in view of Correction Slip No.15, the petitioner would be entitled to a higher pay scale, either on completion of 9 years from the date on which he has been given first benefit i.e. 1st April 1980, or after a period of 6 years from 13th February 1981 i.e. the date on which he was actually officiating as the Stores Superintendent. The benefit will have to be given from the date which the earlier of these two dates. As such, the petitioner would be entitled to get a higher pay scale in the cadre of Stores Superintendent, with effect from 1st April 1989 on the basis of the date on which he was given first benefit, whereas, on the basis of actual officiation, he would be entitled to get the benefit from 13th ( 7) February 1987. The earlier of these two dates comes to 13th February 1987. In that view of the matter, we find, that the denial of second benefit to the petitioner from 13th February 1987, is not sustainable in law. 11. In the result, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant beenfit of General Order No.74 to the petitioner, with effect from 13th February 1987, and give placement to the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs. 1275-65-2120 (unrevised) i.e. the pay scale of Stores Officer. Needless to state, that the arrears, on the basis of the order passed by this Court, shall be paid to the petitioner, with interest at the rate of 6 % per annum, within a period of six months from today. Further, needless to state, that the pension of the petitioner shall also be worked out, on the basis, what has been directed herein above. 12. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. However, parties shall bear their own costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp4941