Allowed

Jayashree Bhaskar Sonawane v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC25 Apr 2016WP/1979/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to tribal allowance and promotional pay scale due to a clerical error. It directed authorities to correct her appointment letter and refund the deducted amount with interest if not paid by the deadline.

What did the court decide?

Appointment letter corrected to reflect Bholewadi sub-centre; petitioners entitled to allowances; refund of Rs.90,659/- ordered within two months with 9% interest if not paid.

Jayashree Bhaskar Sonawane Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1979.2016WP .odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.1979 OF 2016

¶5

Smt. Jayashree d/o. Bhaskar Sonawane,
Age: 33 Yrs., Occ. : Service,
R/o. Kotul, Tq. Akole,
Dist. Ahmednagar PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1] State of Maharashtra, through the Principal Secretary to Public Health Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai

¶8

2] Dy. Director of Health Services, Nashik Circle, Nashik

¶9

3] Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar

¶10

4] District Health Officer, Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar

¶11

5] Medical Officer, Primary Health Center, Kotul, Tq. Akole, Dist. Ahmednagar RESPONDENTS

¶12

...

¶13

Mr.P.B.Shirsath, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr.S.B.Yawalkar, AGP for Respondent – State
Mr.S.T.Shelke, Advocate for Respondent Nos.3
to 5.

¶14

...

¶15

CORAM: S.S.SHINDE &

¶16

 SANGITRAO S.PATIL,JJ.

¶17

Date: 25.04.2016.

¶18

1979.2016WP .odt

¶19

¶20

JUDGMENT: [Per S.S.Shinde, J.]:

¶21

Heard.

¶22

2]Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith

¶23

and heard finally with the consent of the
parties.

¶24

3]It is the case of the petitioner
that she was appointed by respondent no. 3 on
the post of Health Worker by an order dated

¶25

4thOctober, 2005. Respondent no.4, by

¶26

communication dated 5thOctober, 2010,
directed respondent no. 5 to recover the
amount of Rs.90,659/- paid on account of

¶27

tribal allowance and one step promotional pay
scale to the petitioner. The petitioner was

¶28

told by the then authorities that, there was
mistake regarding mentioning of sub-centre of

¶29

PSA, Kotul, in her appointment order, and
therefore, the recovery was sought and after
correction of the said mistake, the
petitioner would be paid the said allowance

¶30

1979.2016WP .odt

¶31

¶32

and one step promotional scale. The

¶33

petitioner believing the advice given by the
higher authorities decided to deposit an
amount paid to her by the respondents on
account of allowance and one step promotional
scale. For depositing the said amount, the
petitioner borrowed money from the relatives

¶34

and deposited the same under protest on
19.11.2010 in ADCC Bank, Branch Akole.

¶35

petitioner that under Kotul Primary Health
Centre [for short ‘PHC’], there are six sub-
centres and one of them is Bholewadi. Under

¶36

Bholewadi sub-centre, there are four

¶37

villages, namely, Waghapur, Bori, Bholewadi
and Nachanthav. The petitioner is working as

¶38

Auxilliary Nurse Midwife in PHC, Kotul and

¶39

she was required to attend the various
training programmes. All communications in
this regard have been addressed on Bholewadi

¶40

1979.2016WP .odt

¶41

¶42

sub-centre. The petitioner and two other
employees were appointed by the respondents
for the said PHC and in the appointment
letter of other employees, Bholewadi sub-
centre was mentioned. The petitioner,
therefore, made several representations to
the authorities for correction of the mistake

¶43

occurred in the appointment order as there
was no Waghapur sub-centre under Kotul PHC.
The petitioner also made a communication to

¶44

the Taluka Health Officer, Panchayat Samiti,
Akole, requesting therein for correcting the
appointmentordertherebymentioning
Bholewadi instead of Waghapur. The petitioner
was transferred from sub-centre Bholewadi to

¶45

sub-centre Dhamangaon Pat under PHC Kotul in

¶46

Akole Taluka. This transfer order also

¶47

mentions that the petitioner was working at

¶48

sub-centre Bholewadi. The petitioner, after

¶49

transfer, again made representation to
respondent no.3 requesting the said authority

¶50

1979.2016WP .odt

¶51

¶52

to correct the typing mistake of sub-centre
instead of Waghapur as Bholewadi.

¶53

5]It is further the case of the

¶54

petitioner that the assurance was given to

¶55

the petitioner that the typing mistake
regarding sub-centre would be corrected as
Bholewadi instead of Waghapur, as there was

¶56

no sub-centre at Waghapur as such, as it was
evident from the perusal of the documents
placed at Exhibit-C of the compilation of the

¶57

Writ Petition. The appointment orders of
other employees working in the sub-centre

¶58

Kotul had been issued in the name of

¶59

Bholewadi sub-centre only. In spite of
continuous efforts taken by the petitioner or

¶60

the redressal for her grievance for
correction in the appointment order, no
decision has been taken by the respondents.
Hence this Writ Petition.

¶61

6]The learned counsel appearing for

¶62

1979.2016WP .odt

¶63

¶64

the petitioner invites our attention to the
copy of the document placed at Exhibit-C
Page-15 and submits that the said document
shows the list of Primary Health Centres /
subcentresfunctioningunderthe

¶65

jurisdiction of Taluka Health Officer, Akole
Panchayat Samiti, Akole. He submits that at
serial no.4 in the said document in sub-
centre Kotul, six sub-centres have been
included and Waghapur is not mentioned in
those 6 sub-centres. He further submits that
the petitioner has been deprived of the
monetary benefits of tribal allowance and one

¶66

step promotional pay scale only on account of
typographical mistake as Waghapur instead of
Bholewadi sub-centre. Therefore, the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner submits
that, the Petition deserves to be allowed.

¶67

counsel appearing for respondent nos.3 to 5
relying upon the averments in the affidavit-

¶68

1979.2016WP .odt

¶69

¶70

in-reply submits that, the Petition is hit by
the delay and laches, and therefore, deserves
to be dismissed in limine. It is submitted
that though the sub-centre Bholewadi under
Primary Health Centre, Kotul is in tribal
area, Waghapur village attached to Bholewadi
sub-centre is in non-tribal area. The
building of sub-centre is also constructed in
village Waghapur. In view of this, the
tribal allowance paid to the petitioner came
to be recovered as well as one step promotion
is denied to the petitioner.

¶71

8]We have considered the submissions

¶72

of the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, the learned AGP appearing for the
respondent – State and the learned counsel
appearing for respondent nos.3 to 5. With
their able assistance, we have perused the
pleadings in the Petition, annexures thereto
and the reply filed by respondent nos. 3 to

¶73

5. We have carefully perused the documents

¶74

1979.2016WP .odt

¶75

¶76

placed on record at Exhibit-C Page-15 of the
compilation of the Writ Petition. The said
document shows the list of Primary Health
Centre and sub-centres under the Primary
Health Centrewithin the jurisdiction of
Taluka Health Officer, Akole Panchayat
Samiti, Akole. At serial no.4 of the list of

¶77

Primary Health Centres, village ‘Kotul’ is

¶78

mentioned. In another column, it is shown

¶79

that there are 6 sub-centres under Primary

¶80

Health Centre at Kotul, the names of the said
sub-centres are Dhamangaon Pat, Chas,

¶81

Bholewadi, Pangri, Pimpalgaon Khand and
Lingdeo. There is no mention of village
Waghapur. The contention of the learned

¶82

counsel appearing for respondent nos.3 to 5

¶83

that Waghapur village is included in sub-

¶84

centre Bholewadi and even building of the

¶85

sub-centre is situated at Waghapur, and
therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for
the monetary benefits of tribal allowance and

¶86

1979.2016WP .odt

¶87

¶88

one step promotional pay scale, cannot be

¶89

accepted. There is no denial to the
assertion of the petitioner that other
employees who were working with the
petitioner at Bholewadi sub-centre are
receiving monetary benefits. It appears that
instead of mentioning ‘Bholewadi’ in the
appointment letter of the petitioner by
mistake it was written as ‘Waghapur’.
Admittedly, ‘Waghapur’ is not sub-centre
within the jurisdiction of Primary Health
Centre, Kotul.

¶90

9]Upon careful perusal of the copy of

¶91

the appointment letter placed at Exhibit-A
Page-11 of the Writ Petition, while
mentioning the place of appointment and while
mentioning sub-centre, the same is shown at
Waghapur Primary Health Centre, Kotul, Taluka
Akole, District Ahmednagar. Admittedly, there
is no sub-centre at Waghapur and it is not in

¶92

dispute that the petitioner is rendering

¶93

¶94

1979.2016WP .odt

¶95

services within jurisdiction of Primary
Health Centre, Kotul at Bholewadi. As already
observed, there is sub-centre at Bholewadi.
Therefore, there is considerable force in the
argument of the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner that the petitioner is also
entitled for the monetary benefits of travel
allowance and one step promotional pay scale.

¶96

10]In the light of discussion in the
foregoing paragraphs, in the facts and
circumstances of this case, we direct
respondent nos. 2 to 5 to take steps to carry
out the correction in the appointment letter
of the petitioner by removing Waghapur and
substitute Bholewadi, after verifying the
record maintained by the office of respondent
nos. 3 to 5, as expeditiously as possible,
however, on or before 30th May, 2016. In case
the respondents come to the conclusion to
substitute Waghapur by Bholewadi and take

¶97

1979.2016WP .odt

¶98

¶99

decision to that effect, the benefits which
are available as per the relevant Government
policy for rendering service under PHC, Kotul
at Bholewadi, the petitioner be given the
same benefits as were given to the other
employees working within jurisdiction of the
Primary Health Centre, Kotul and in
particular at Bholewadi as expeditiously as
possible, however, on or before 30th July,
2016. Needless to observe that, if the
petitioner succeeds before the authorities,
the respondents are directed to refund her
the amount of Rs.90,659/- on or before 30th
July, 2016, however, without any interest.
However, we make it clear that on finding the
petitioner entitle for the said amount, after

¶100

taking afore-mentioned steps by the

¶101

authorities and if the amount is not paid by
the end of July, 2016, as indicated above,
the petitioner will be entitled for 9%
interest from 1st August, 2016.

¶102

1979.2016WP .odt

¶103

¶104

11]The Writ Petition is allowed to the
above extent. Rule is made absolute on the
above terms. The Petition stands disposed of

¶105

accordingly.

¶106

Sd/-Sd/-
 [SANGITRAO S.PATIL] [S.S.SHINDE]
 JUDGE JUDGE

¶107

DDC

Jayashree Bhaskar Sonawane v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayashree Bhaskar Sonawane v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Phoenix Foundation Sanstha through Its Treasurer Amar Pasha Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Abid Hussain Zainoddin Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ansari Sadequa Bano Shafique Ahmed Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Devendra Madan Kakde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Swati Kakasaheb Pawar Vs Sachin Nagnath Jagtap and Another

Shivaji Shahajirao Jahagirdar Vs Sachin Nagnath Jagtap and Another