Allowed

Gorakshanath Damodhar Varpe v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC16 Jun 2022WP/1150/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed two writ petitions filed by government employees seeking pay fixation under the Assured Career Progression Scheme. The court found the respondent office guilty of delay and misconduct, directed a show cause notice, awarded costs, and ordered immediate pay fixation.

What did the court decide?

Show cause notice issued against Respondent No. 2; costs of Rs. 10,000 each awarded; pay fixation ordered within 14 days.

Gorakshanath Damodhar Varpe Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

wp1150.22.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1150 OF 2022

¶5

Gorakshanath S/o Damodhar Varpe

¶6

Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & others

¶9

Respondents

¶10

Mr. S. T Shelke, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A. R. Kale, AGP for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. S. S. Wagh, Advocate for respondent No. 3.

¶11

WITH

¶12

WRIT PETITION NO. 1171 OF 2022

¶13

Sanjay S/o Purushottam Kshirsagar Petitioner

¶14

Versus

¶15

The State of Maharashtra & others

¶16

Respondents

¶17

Mr. S. T Shelke, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S. G. Sangle, AGP for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. S. S. Wagh, Advocate for respondent No. 3.

¶18

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ.

¶19

DATE : 16^th JUNE, 2022.

¶20

PER COURT :

¶21

Leave to correct prayer clauses ‘B’ and ‘C’. Corrections

¶22

be carried out forthwith.

¶23

¶24

wp1150.22.odt

¶25

The petitioners in both these petitions are identically placed insofar as the cause of action is concerned. The petitioner in the frst petition has already superannuated from his post as Junior Clerk, on 31^st May, 2021. The petitioner in the second petition is 57 years old and is working as a Peon with respondent No. 3. Very soon, he would be due to retire.

¶26

3. Following factors are undisputed :-

¶27

A) Both these petitioners have been extended second beneft of the Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS) applicable even to the non-teaching staff after completion of 24 years in employment.

¶28

B) On 4^th October, 2018, this Court, at the Principal Seat, delivered an order in Writ Petition No. 334/2018 in the matter of Mr. Suresh Shinde and another vs. State of Maharashtra and others with connected petitions and concluded that the non-teaching staff is entitled for the ACPS benefts. In order to avoid multiplicity of litigation, it was observed in paragraph No. 6 of the judgment as under :-

¶29

We open and trust that the Respondents would extend the beneft of the Assured Career Progression Scheme in so far as the second beneft after 24 years is concerned to all the non teaching staff who are similarly situated as the petitioners above named and

¶30

¶31

wp1150.22.odt

¶32

it would not be necessary for them to approach this court for getting the said relief.

¶33

C) On 8^th July, 2020, the Education Offcer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar, sanctioned pay scale of Rs. 9300-34800 Grade Pay Rs. 4200/- under ACPS to the frst petitioner and the pay scale of Rs.5200-20200 Grade Pay Rs. 1900/- under ACPS to the second petitioner.

¶34

D) Ever since the above directions of the Education Offcer, respondent No. 2 refused to carry out pay fxation.

¶35

E) Several other employees have been granted such pay fxation by respondent No. 2. These petitioners are singled out.

¶36

F) The second petitioner is due to retire on 30^th September, 2025.

¶37

The learned AGP has strenuously contended that the directions from this Court would undo the rigours suffered by the petitioners and respondent No. 2 would forthwith carry out the pay fxation.

¶38

We fnd from the record that the Head Master of the school addressed respondent No. 2, repeatedly requesting him to carry out the pay fxation. The educational institution also pursued

¶39

¶40

wp1150.22.odt

¶41

respondent No. 2 so as to convince him to do the needful. Despite that and though the petitioners themselves pursued respondent No. 2, he has not carried out the pay fxation.

¶42

When this Court had observed in paragraph No. 6 of the order dated 4^th October, 2018, reproduced above, that steps should be taken to extend such benefts to the eligible employees so as to avoid litigation by approaching this Court, respondent No. 2 should have acted strictly within the frame work of law.

¶43

Considering the conduct of respondent No. 2 in causing miseries to the petitioners, we fnd this to be a ft case for directing the Chief Executive Offcer, Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar, to issue appropriate show cause notice to respondent No. 2, calling upon him to explain as to why a disciplinary action should not be initiated against him. After he explains his conduct, the Chief Executive Offcer would take an appropriate decision.

¶44

In view of the above, this petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses ‘B’ and ‘C’ in both the petitions.

¶45

¶46

wp1150.22.odt

¶47

By way of costs, we direct that Rs. 10,000/- each, to be paid to both the petitioners. The said amount shall be deposited by respondent No. 2 from his salary account, on or before 15^th July, 2022, in this Court. The petitioners shall thereafter withdraw the amount of Rs. 10,000/- each, without conditions.

¶48

Respondent No. 2 shall carry out the pay fxation of these two petitioners as expeditiously as possible, and in any case, on or before 1^st July, 2022.

¶49

We direct the learned Registrar (Judicial) to place a copy of this order before the Chief Executive Offcer, Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar.

¶50

( ANIL L. PANSARE ) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE ) Judge Judge

¶51

dyb

Gorakshanath Damodhar Varpe v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gorakshanath Damodhar Varpe 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dilip Govinda Sonawane and Others Vs Sujata Saunik Additional Chief Secretary and Others

Ambadas Keshav Misal and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Maharashtra Rajya Aids Niyantran Karmachari Kalyan Sanghatana through Its General Secretary Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Others

M/S Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Finance Ltd. through Its Authorized Officer Mr. Amol Raghunath Sutar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ganesh Chandrakant Ingle Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sanjay Purushottam Kshirsagar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others