Dismissed

Dhondiram Limbaji Sonawane v. the Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC22 Mar 2018WP/11867/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The high court dismissed a writ petition filed by a retired primary teacher seeking a selection grade pay scale and consequential benefits from 2004. The court held that the petitioner did not possess the requisite twenty-four years of continuous service on or after 1 January 1986.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed without costs; the impugned order denying selection grade benefits was not set aside.

Dhondiram Limbaji Sonawane Vs the Secretary… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

( 1 ) wp11867.16

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 11867 OF 2016

¶4

Dhondiram s/o. Limbaji Sonawane,..Petitioner
Age. Major, Occ. Retired Teacher,
Shahunagar, Tq. Majalgaon,
Dist. Beed.

¶5

Versus

¶6

1. The Secretary to the

¶7

.. Respondents

¶8

Government of Maharashtra, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32.

¶9

2. The Chief Executive Officer,

¶10

Zilla Parishad, Beed.

¶11

3. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Beed.

¶12

Mr.S.D. Dhongade, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.S.S. Dande, AGP for respondent No.1.
Mr.K.B. Jadhavar, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

¶13

CORAM : S.S.SHINDE &
S.M.GAVHANE,JJ.
 RESERVED ON :24.01.2018
 PRONOUNCED ON :22.03.2018

¶14

JUDGMENT [PER : S.M.GAVHANE,J.] :-

¶15

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with

¶16

the consent of parties heard finally.

¶17

2.By this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner has claimed
following substantive reliefs:-

¶18

“(C)By a Writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or directions, the
respondents be directed to grant selection grade
pay scale to the petitioner since 1.1.2004 with
all consequential benefits including payment of
arrears of difference of pay and allowances, re-
fixation of pay and pensionary benefits etc.

¶19

(D)By a Writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or directions, the
respondents be directed to pay costs of the
litigation.

¶20

(E)By a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or directions regarding
set aside the order which is passed by Zilla
Parishad Beed on dated 20.06.2016 Sr.No.24, and
grant selection grade pay scale to the
petitioner since 2004.”

¶21

3.According to the petitioner, he joined service
with respondent No.2, Zilla Parishad as a Primary

¶22

Teacher. He is granted the post of Assistant Teacher by

¶23

the passage of time considering his performance,
eligibility and qualification. Fourth Pay Commission was

¶24

made applicable to the employees of the State Government

¶25

since 01.01.1986 and in accordance with the same he has
been granted higher grade pay scale since 01.01.1986. As

¶26

per Government Resolution dated 18.06.2008, the
Government has granted selection grade pay scale to the

¶27

primary teachers on certain terms and conditions. For
grant of such selection grade, one of the conditions laid

¶28

down is that, the teacher should have completed 24 years
continuous service. Prior to 01.01.1986, the petitioner
has completed 12 years service and since 01.01.1986, he
has been granted higher grade. Considering this date,
the petitioner is entitled to get selection grade on
completion of 12 years i.e. on 01.01.1998. The other
condition prescribed is that the teacher concerned should

¶29

have undergone in-service training prescribed by the
Government. The petitioner has undergone and completed
successfully such training during 18.01.1984 to

¶30

14.02.1984 and there is entry to that effect taken in
service book. The petitioner has also undergone and
successfully completed two days' training prescribed by

¶31

the Zilla Parishad in respect of taluka level quality
determination from 30.12.2004 to 31.12.2004. He has also
undergone five days' training under Sarv Shikshan Scheme.

¶32

4.Further it is contended that it is also expected

¶33

from a teacher desirous of grant of selection grade, on
completion of 12 years continuous service as Higher Grade
teacher to improve his educational qualification.
However, the relaxation is given to such condition, if a
teacher completes 18 years service as Higher Grade
teacher, as mentioned in para 7, page No.3 of the
Government Resolution dated 04.04.1990 issued by the

¶34

Rural Development Department of the Government of
Maharashtra. So also, considering the writ petition
filed before this Court in 2002, the Government of

¶35

Maharashtra accepted to reckon the services rendered as
primary teacher for grant of selection grade on the same
terms and conditions which were imposed while granting

¶36

three tier pay scales (Chatopadhyay Commission

¶37

Recommendations). The petitioner is permitted to cross

¶38

efficiency bar in the pay-scale after he reached at the
stage at Rs.1650/- and also after reaching the stage of

¶39

Rs.1950/-, which are the facts indicative of his
satisfactory performance exhibited in service tenure.

¶40

5.According to the petitioner, thus, he fulfills
all the terms and conditions incorporated in the

¶41

Government Resolution granting Chattopadhyay Commission

¶42

to the teachers. Same terms and conditions are
applicable for grant of selection grade to the teachers
except additional condition of improvisation in
educational eligibility. This condition is also given
relaxation vide Government Resolution dated 04.04.1990.

¶43

The respondents have issued orders declaring 74 teachers

¶44

out of 240 teachers eligible for grant of selection grade
on 20.06.2016, thereby declining grant of such benefits
to 166 teachers including the petitioner. He has not

¶45

been granted such pay-scale of selection grade. He
submitted number of applications to the respondents on
28.06.2016, 30.06.2016, 20.07.2016, 03.09.2016 to grant

¶46

him selection grade as he is fulfilling criteria for
grant of said pay-scale but of no avail. He has retired
on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2006.
Therefore, this petition to grant him selection grade
pay-scale since 01.01.2004 i.e. on the date of completion
of 18 years continuous service as higher grade teacher
with all consequential benefits, as claimed.

¶47

6.Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have filed affidavit-in-
reply of Askari Shaikh, Dy. Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Beed. In para Nos.3 and 4, it is stated
thus :-

¶48

“3.I say and submit that, person who have
completed 12 years service is entitled for
selection grade and senior pay scale, but who
are completing the conditions as per the
Government Resolutions are entitled to get the
selection grade person who are not fulfilling
criteria as per Government Resolution are not
entitled to get the selection grade and all
powers to conditions for the selection are with
the Government and the petitioner is not
fulfillingcriteriaasperGovernment
Resolution.

¶49

4.I further say and submit that, as per
the Government Resolution dated 04.07.1990 the

¶50

service of the petitioners is less than the
criteria for the selection grade pay scale and
therefore the petitioner is not entitled to get
the selection grade pay scale.”

¶51

.Further, it is stated that out of 240 primary

¶52

teachers only 74 teachers have fulfilled criteria as per

¶53

Government Resolution guidelines and other 166 primary
teachers have not fulfilled the criteria laid down by the
Government i.e. they have not completed 18 years of
service on 01.01.1986 and therefore those primary
teachers are not entitled to get senior grade pay scale.
It is stated that there is no merit in the petition and
it deserves to be dismissed.

¶54

7.After filing of the aforesaid reply-affidavit,
the petitioner has filed rejoinder dated 22.01.2018,
reiterating almost all the contentions raised in the
petition. Additional contentions raised in this rejoinder

¶55

in short are that in the impugned order, the name of the

¶56

petitioner is shown at Sr.No.24 and the reason for
rejection of his claim for selection grade is shown as,

¶57

“no qualifying services for 18 years prior to 01.01.1986
and higher qualification, hence ineligible”. At
Sr.No.26, name of one Mr. Radkar Dashrath Tukaram is
shown. He is also shown ineligible but he is granted
selection grade on 12.06.2009. It is pertinent to submit
that, he has been granted selection grade on 18.03.2017
though shown to be ineligible and though he is shown
junior to the petitioner in that list. The petitioner
further submits that prior to 01.07.1972 many teachers
were appointed on the basis of their SSC qualification
and were not trained teachers. Some of them acquired
qualification of D.Ed. during their service period and
some had undergone training of allied courses and the
training prescribed by the department. In order to grant
them benefits of higher grade pay scale and selection
grade pay scale, as per the recommendations of
Chattopadhyay Commission, as a special case, the
Government resolved to make applicable the selection
grade on certain terms and conditions.

¶58

8.Further it is stated that the petitioner

¶59

completed 12 years of service in 1985. However, three

¶60

tier pay scales were made applicable since 1986. Hence,
he got first benefit as on 01.01.1986 though he was due
to get such benefit in 1985 itself. On 04.04.1990, the

¶61

Government issued resolution making applicable to the
primary and secondary teachers working in Zilla Parishad,

¶62

the three tier pay scales i.e. original pay-scale, higher
grade and selection grade. The higher grade pay scale
would be made applicable on completion of 12 years
qualifying service. Certain terms and conditions are
prescribed for grant of such pay scales in the said
Government Resolution. Clause-7 of the said Government
Resolution prescribes that primary and secondary teachers

¶63

are eligible to get selection grade on completion of

¶64

qualifying service for 12 years, on acquiring
qualification as per clause 5-C of the said resolution.

¶65

However, condition of acquiring qualification as per

¶66

clause 5-C is relaxed in case of those teachers who have

¶67

completed continuous service for 18 years or more in

¶68

order to grant them selection grade. However, those who

¶69

have not completed 18 years continuous service, would be
required to acquire qualification for grant of selection
grade. The petitioner joined service in 1973. He has

¶70

completed 18 years continuous service in August, 1991.

¶71

Therefore, the contention of passing or acquiring of
qualification in accordance with clause 5-C of the
Government Resolution is not applicable to him or in
other words he has already exempted from acquiring said
qualification. Therefore, there was no reason for the
respondents to reject grant of selection grade to him on

¶72

the false ground that he is not eligible for want of
continuous service for 18 years or possessing
qualification.

¶73

9.Moreover, it is stated that on 20.07.2004 the
Government has issued another Resolution by which primary
teachers completing continuous service for 24 years were
granted selection grade. Clause-1 of the said resolution

¶74

prescribes that for grant of selection grade services

¶75

rendered earlier would be taken into consideration.
However, actual monetary benefits would be made
applicable since 01.04.2004 onwards. Prior to it, the
teacher concerned would be given notional increments on
fixation of his pay in the selection grade pay-scale. It
is contended that the petitioner, who completed 18 years
service in the year 1991 would be eligible to get
selection grade since then by fixing his pay in the
selection grade and giving him notional increments since
then. However, he would be entitled to monetary benefits
only after 01.04.2004.

¶76

10.We have heard learned advocate appearing for the
petitioner, learned AGP appearing for respondent No.1 and
learned Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.2 & 3. We
have perused the pleadings made in the petition,
affidavit-in-reply, rejoinder, Government Resolutions
relied upon by the petitioner, impugned order (Exh. “E”)
and all other documents produced by the petitioner.

¶77

11.There is no dispute that the petitioner joined
service with respondent No.2 as a primary teacher on
20.08.1973. He has been granted higher grade pay scale
since 01.01.1986. He retired on attaining the age of
superannuation on 31.01.2006.

¶78

12.The grievance of the petitioner is that he has
not been granted selection grade in the light of
Government Resolutions dated 04.04.1990 and 18.06.2008,
though he has completed continuous service of 18 years
and condition of passing or acquiring of qualification in
accordance with Clause 5-C of the resolution dated
04.04.1990 is not applicable to him.

¶79

13.On perusal of the Government Resolution dated
04.04.1990 (Exh. “D”), it appears that it is in respect
of applying higher grade/selection grade to the teachers
in the Zilla Parishad Schools. The eligibility to get
selection grade is as per sub-clauses “A”, “B” and “C” of
Clause-5 of this Government Resolution. As per sub-clause

¶80

(A) the candidate must have completed 12 years continuous
service in the higher grade. As per sub-clause (B), the
candidate should have completed in service training. As
per sub-clause (C) for primary teachers, they should have
acquired qualification of trained graduate. So also, as
per Clause-7 of this Government Resolution, primary
teachers who have served in higher grade for more than 12
years are eligible to get selection grade on obtaining
educational qualification as per Clause-5(C) of the
Government Resolution. This clause further says that the
teachers those who have completed 18 years continuous
service or more, would be granted exemption from
acquiring said educational qualification and those who
have not completed 18 years service will have to acquire
said educational qualification, otherwise they would not
be considered for further grade.

¶81

14.The petitioner was appointed on 20.08.1973 as a
primary teacher. There is no dispute that he was granted
first benefit of higher grade on 01.01.1986. Considering

¶82

the said date of giving higher grade benefit to the
petitioner, it cannot be said that on the date of
Government Resolution i.e. 04.04.1990 he served
continuously for 12 years in the higher grade. So also,
it cannot be said that on the date of said Government

¶83

Resolution, he completed continuous service of 18 years
from the date of his appointment i.e. 20.08.1973, so as

¶84

to say that he is entitled to get exemption from
acquiring educational qualification as per Clause-5(C) of
the said Government Resolution. Therefore, when the
petitioner does not fulfill requirements as per Clause-5
and Clause-7 of the Government Resolution dated
04.04.1990, it cannot be said that he is entitled to
selection grade, on the basis of Government Resolution
dated 04.04.1990.

¶85

15.The Government Resolution dated 18.06.2008 gives

¶86

exemption to the primary teachers to obtain educational
qualification for eligibility to get selection grade in
case teacher is having continuous service of 18 years or

¶87

more on 01.01.1986 and in case on the said date, such
teacher is having less than 18 years service, said
teacher is not eligible to get said exemption, otherwise
he would not be treated as eligible for selection grade.
As said above, the petitioner was appointed on
20.08.1973. Therefore, as petitioner is not having
continuous service of 18 years on 01.01.1986 from his
appointment, he cannot get benefit of this Government
Resolution to get exemption from obtaining higher
educational qualification, to get selection grade as per
above Government Resolution.

¶88

16.As per rejoinder, petitioner's case is that

¶89

since he has completed 24 years continuous service, he is
entitled to selection grade as per Government Resolution
dated 20.07.2004 and therefore, the respondents be
directed to grant selection grade pay scale to him since
01.01.2004 with all consequential benefits including
payment of arrears of difference of pay and allowance,
re-fixation of pay and pensionary benefit etc. After

¶90

rejoinder, the respondents have not filed any reply.
There is no dispute that the petitioner joined service as
primary teacher on 20.08.1973. He has been granted
higher grade pay scale since 01.01.1986. He has retired

¶91

on 31.01.2006. The Government Resolution dated
20.07.2004 is regarding applying selection grade to
primary teachers who have completed 24 years continuous
service. The decision of the Government as per the said
Government Resolution is thus :-

¶92

'kklu fu.kZ; % fnukad 1-1-1986 iklwu ofj"B osruJs.khrhy osru ?ks.kk&;k o fnukad 1-1-1986 fdaok R;kuarj lyx 24 o"kkZP;k vgZrkdkjh lsok iw.kZ >kysY;k jkT;krhy LFkkuhd LojkT; laLFkkaP;k izkFkfed 'kkGk o ekU;rkizkIr [kktxh izkFkfed 'kkGkarhy ofj"B osruJs.khr osru ?ks.kk&;k o fuoMJs.khlkBh foghr

¶93

dsysY;k vVhaph iwrZrk dj.kk&;k f'k{kdkauk fn- 1-1-1986 iklwu [kkyhy vVhaP;k v/khu jkgwu fuoMJs.kh ns.;kl 'kklukph ekU;rh ns.;kr ;sr vkgs &

¶94

¼1½ fuoMJs.khlkBh izkFkfed f'k{kdkaph iwohZph vgZrkdkjh lsok xzkg; /kj.;kr ;sbZy- ekrz] izR;

¶95

{k vkfFkZd Qk;nk fn- 1-4-2004 iklwu feGsy-

¶96

17.Thus Government Resolution dated 20.07.2004

¶97

shows that the teachers in primary schools who are
getting higher grade pay-scale since 01.01.1986 and those
who have completed continuous service of 24 years on

¶98

01.01.1986 or thereafter in the primary schools of local
bodies or any recognized private primary schools and
those who are satisfying conditions of obtaining
selection grade would get selection grade from
01.01.1986. Earlier service of such primary teachers

¶99

would be counted for selection grade, but actual
financial benefit would be given from 01.04.2004. Thus,

¶100

as per Government Resolution dated 20.07.2004,
petitioner's continuous service from 01.01.1986 i.e. from
obtaining higher grade pay-scale till date of retirement
on 31.01.2006 comes to 20 years and one month and as such

¶101

his continuous service is less than 24 years after

¶102

01.01.1986. So also, he is not having 24 years continuous
service on 01.01.1986 from his appointment on 20.08.1973.
Therefore, even as per Government Resolution dated
20.07.2004, the petitioner is not entitled to selection
grade and financial benefit from 01.04.2004.

¶103

18.On perusal of the impugned order dated

¶104

20.06.2016 (Exh. “E” with list) it appears that benefit

¶105

of selection grade pay-scale was not granted to 166
primary teachers including the petitioner, on the ground
that they are not having 18 years continuous service
prior to 01.01.1986 and higher educational qualification.
In the above said list name of the petitioner is at Sr.
No.24. It specifically shows that he was disqualified
for getting selection grade pay-scale for the above said
reasons.

¶106

19.According to the petitioner one Shri Radkar

¶107

Dashrath Tukaram, who is at Sr.No.26 in above referred
list with Exh. “E” and who is below the petitioner in
seniority was also disqualified for selection grade as
per the impugned order. However, subsequently, he has
been granted selection grade. It appears that Shri Radkar
was granted selection grade pay scale from 01.04.2004 and
accordingly selection grade pay was fixed by the Block
Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Majalgaon (page 86).

¶108

It appears from list with the impugned order that the
petitioner’s name is shown at Sr.No.24 and the name of

¶109

Shri Radkar Dashrath Tukaram is shown at Sr.No.26 and

¶110

both were held ineligible for selection grade. Said list
of teachers who were held ineligible for selection grade
shows that birth date of Shri Radkar is 08.10.1940 and he
has joined service as Assistant Teacher on 19.06.1963 and

¶111

he retired on 28.02.1999, whereas date of birth of the
petitioner is 07.01.1948. He joined service as Assistant
Teacher on 20.08.1973 and he has retired on 31.01.2006.

¶112

Thus, it appears that from joining his service on
19.06.1963 till retirement Shri Radkar has served for
about 36 years and completed 24 years service after
01.01.1986 as per Government Resolution dated 20.07.2004.

¶113

As noted above, the petitioner has not completed 24 years
service either on 01.01.1986 or thereafter from the date

¶114

of joining service on 20.08.1973. Therefore, case of
Radkar is different. Therefore, it cannot be said that
the petitioner is entitled to claim selection grade pay
scale, since Shri Radkar is granted selection grade as
per pay fixation made by the Block Education Officer,
Panchayat Samiti, Majalgaon.

¶115

20.On considering the Government Resolutions dated
04.04.1990, 20.07.2004 and 18.06.2008 referred to above,
we find no fault in the impugned order, denying the

¶116

selection grade pay scale to the petitioner from
01.01.2004 as claimed by him.

¶117

21.For the reasons discussed hereinabove, we hold
that no directions can be issued to the respondents to
grant selection grade pay scale to the petitioner since
01.01.2004 and there is no reason to set aside the
impugned order dated 20.06.2016, passed by respondent
No.3, denying selection grade pay-scale to the
petitioner. Therefore, as there is no merit in the writ
petition, we dismiss the same. Rule is discharged. No
costs.

¶118

[S.M.GAVHANE,J.]

¶119

snk/2018/MAR18/ wp11867.16

Dhondiram Limbaji Sonawane v. the Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhondiram Limbaji Sonawane v. the Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Banarasidas Jindal Died through Lrs Anita Anil Jindal and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Janardhan Hanumantrao Patil Salunke and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rajesh Ramesh Sangore and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Jijabai Rambhau Gochade Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Sillod Education Society(Minority) Thr President Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Nivrati Nagnath Khalangre and Others Vs the Union of India and Others