Allowed

Dhondiba Govindrao Salunke v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC1 Mar 2021WP/3806/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-order judgment allows three writ petitions filed by District awardee teachers. The High Court held that the 2018 government resolution barring additional increments cannot apply retrospectively to teachers awarded status before that date. The respondents (Zilla Parishads) were directed to consider the petitioners' claims for additional benefits under the 2000 resolution within six mont

What did the court decide?

Respondent Zilla Parishads directed to consider petitioners' cases for additional increment under Govt. Resolution dated 12/12/2000 on merits within six months.

Dhondiba Govindrao Salunke Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

37-WP-3803-2021.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

37 WRIT PETITION NO.3803 OF 2021

¶5

RAJU KALANU AWACHAR AND OTHERS VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶7

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Mathpati Shivkumar K AGP for Respondents/State: Mrs. V. S. Chaudhari Advocate for Respondent Nos.6 & 7: Mr. S. B. Ghute

¶8

40 WRIT PETITION NO.3806 OF 2021

¶9

DHONDIBA GOVINDRAO SALUNKE VERSUS

¶10

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶11

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Mathpati Shivkumar K AGP for Respondents/State: Mr. P. S. Patil Advocate for Respondent Nos.6 & 7: Mr. P. R. Tandale

¶12

41 WRIT PETITION NO.3807 OF 2021

¶13

MANIK VITTHALRAO SALPE AND OTHERS VERSUS

¶14

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶15

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Mathpati Shivkumar K AGP for Respondents/State: Mr. P. S. Patil Advocate for Respondent Nos. 6 & 7: Mr. P. D. Suryawanshi

¶16

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA & SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.

¶17

DATE : 1^st March, 2021

37-WP-3803-2021.odt

P.C. :

. We have heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned A.G.P. and learned counsel for respective Zilla Parishads.

¶22

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that all the petitioners in these writ petitions are the District awardee teachers prior to 04/09/2018.

¶23

For the first time additional increment was given to the District awardee teachers under Govt. Resolution dated 12/12/2000. Pursuant thereto, additional increments as per the said Govt. Resolution were given.

¶24

There are other categories of awardee teachers such as State awardee teachers, national awardee teachers and the award being given for excellent/outstanding work. In the present cases, we are concerned only with the District awardee teachers.

¶25

Upon perusal of various Govt. Resolutions placed on record, it does not appear that prior to the Govt. Resolution dated 04/09/2018, there was any Govt. Resolution taking away benefit of the additional increment given to District awardee teachers. Ofcourse, now, no District awardee teacher would be entitled for the benefit in view of the Govt. Resolution dated 04/09/2018. However,

¶26

¶27

37-WP-3803-2021.odt

¶28

Govt. Resolution dated 04/09/2018 can not be given retrospective effect.

¶29

Govt. Resolution relied by the learned counsel for Zilla Parishad viz. Govt. Resolution dated 27/02/2009 is general in nature. It only states that the committee formed by the Govt. has made recommendation and the same is to be accepted with certain modifications. Under the Govt. Resolution dated 24/08/2017, Govt. has taken decision that the benefit of advance increment would not be available to those who were granted certificate of excellent work. It is under the Govt. Resolution dated 04/09/2018 now the benefit of additional increment to the District awardee teacher can not be given.

¶30

However, all those who were granted certificate of District awardee teacher prior to 04/09/2018 can not be denied the said benefit of additional increment.

¶31

In light of the above, we pass the following order.

¶32

ORDER

¶33

The respondent/Zilla Parishad after confirming themselves of the petitioners being District awardee teachers and awarded certificate prior to 04/09/2018 shall individually consider the case of

¶34

¶35

37-WP-3803-2021.odt

¶36

the petitioners for additional increment as is laid down under the Govt. Resolution dated 12/12/2000. The same shall be considered on

¶37

its own merits expeditiously preferably within a period of six months.

¶38

Writ Petitions disposed of accordingly.

¶39

(SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.)

¶40

(S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)

¶41

Sameer

Dhondiba Govindrao Salunke v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhondiba Govindrao Salunke 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Milind S/O. Mangalrao Ghan Vs the Chairman Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation Pune and Another

Rameshwar Bhagwanrao Shinde Vs the Chairman Maharashtra State Ware Housing Corporation Pune and Another

Ganesh Bhika Bhokare Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Dist Collector Aurangabad and Other

Pushpa Bhaskar Khule Thr Her Power of Attorney Holder Bhaskarrao Tatyarao Khule Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Commissioner and Others

Mukteshwar Keshavrao Dhondage Vs Keshavrao Shankarrao Dhondage and Others

Raju Kalanu Awachar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others