Allowed

Sachin Khanderao Dhumale v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC16 Feb 2022WP/2485/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a government resolution withdrawing advance increments granted for excellent work awarded between 2006-2008. The court held the resolution has prospective effect only, precluding retrospective withdrawal, and ordered refund of any recovered amounts while directing payment of incidental monetary benefits.

What did the court decide?

Petitions allowed. One or two advance increments granted for excellent work shall not be withdrawn. Any recovered amount to be refunded; monetary benefits not already fixed to be released.

Sachin Khanderao Dhumale Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

1 common judgment in wp 3789-2021+

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.3789 OF 2021

¶4

Shivaji s/o Raosaheb Kavchat, Age : 62 years, Occu.; Retired, A/p.: Shakutal Nivas, Mitra nagar, Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed

¶5

Laxman s/o Sitaram Khole, Age : 66 years, Occu.: Retired, A/p.: Ganpati Nagar, June Sarsvati Vidyalay, Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed

¶6

Shakuntala Bhimrao Thombare, Age : 62 years, Occu.: Retired, A/p.: Near New Bus Stand, Shirur Kasar, Tq. Shirur, Dist. Beed

¶7

Bhaskar s/o Khandurao Shinghan, Age : 60 years, Occu.: REtired, A/p.: Barshi Naka, Beed, Tq. and Dist. Beed

¶8

Shivaji s/o Gangaram Dharne, Age : 64 years, Occu.: Retired, A/p.: Koshti Galli, Ambejogai, Tq. Ambejogai, Dist. Beed

¶9

Vatsala Vishwanath Hoke, Age : 63 years, occu.: Retired, A/p.: Near Mahadeo Mandir, Talkhed, Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed

¶10

Pramod s/o Mahalingappa Baware, Age : 55 years, Occu.: Service, A/p.: Panchayat Samiti, Parli, Tq. Parli, Dist. Beed

¶11

2 common judgment in wp 3789-2021+

¶12

Ramakant s/o Shivajirao Panchal, Age : 60 years, Occu.: Retired, A/p.: Pus, Ambejogai, Tq. Ambejogai, Dist. Beed

¶13

Siddiharth s/o Shivajrao Jagatkar, Age : 56 years, Occu.: Service, A/p.: P.H.C. Nagapur, Tq. Parli, Dist. Beed

¶14

Baban s/o Shantiling Honrao, Age : 66 years, Occu.: Retired, A/p.: Virshaiv Colony, Near Police Station, Peth, Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed

¶15

Malan Damodhar Kasule, Age : 67 years, Occu.: Retired, A/p.: Kasalwadi, Tq. Pathardi, Dist : Ahmednagar

¶16

Keshar Maruti Shinde, Age : 62 years, Occu.: Retired, A/p.: Tilak Nagar, Y\eshvantrao Chauk, Ambejogai, Tq. Ambejogai, Dist. Beed

¶17

Minakshi Limbaji Dhakane, Age : 52 years, Occu.: Service, A/p.: P.H.C. Wahali, Tq. Patoda, Dist.: Beed

¶18

Arjun s/o Deorao Anarase, Age : 56 years, Occu.: Service, A/p.: P.H.C. Dhamagaon, Tq. Ashti, Dist. Beed

¶19

Sudhir s/o Laxman Raut, Age : 62 years, Occu.: Retired, A/p.: Ashti, Tq. Ashti, Dist. Beed

¶20

3 common judgment in wp 3789-2021+

¶21

Sominath s/o Deorao Dhas, Age : 62 years, Occu.: Retired, A/p.: Mauli Nivas, Vinayak Nagar, Murshadpur, Ashti, Tq. Ashti, Dist. Beed

¶22

Gangu Shankar Bhailume, Age : 67 years, Occu.: Retired, A/p.: Jai Nivas, Tapaneswar, Jamkhed Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahmednagar

¶23

Gopichand s/o Vitthalrao Mendke, Age : 66 years, Occu.: Retired, A/p.: Postman Colony, Pangari Road, Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed

¶24

Avinash s/o Devidas Salukhe, Age : 65 years, Occu.: Retired, A/p.: Chalkamba, Tq. Georai, Dist. Beed

¶25

Parmeshwar s/o Laxman Adhapure, Age : 62 years, Occu.: Retired, A/p.: Rupam Residency, Bhushan Nagar, Link Road, Kedgaon, Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar

¶26

Haribhau s/o Dattatrayarao Jadhawar, Age : 61 years, Occu.: Retired, A/p.: Kutewadi, Parner, Tq. Patoda, Dist. Beed

¶27

Bhanudas s/o Dadarao Tangade, Age : 57 years, Occu.: Service, A/p.: P.H.C. Tadsonna, Tq. & Dist. Beed

¶28

Rafeeq Jafer Shaikh, Age : 65 years, Occu.: Retired, A/p.: Giram Galli, Karanja Road, Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed

¶29

4 common judgment in wp 3789-2021+

¶30

Sampartao s/o Sambhajirao Haral, Age : 65 years, Occu.: Retired, A/p.: Pitaji Nagar, Majalgaon, Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed

¶31

Rajubai Nivratti Thorat, Age : 57 Years, Occu.: Service, A/p.: P.H.C. Khalapuri, Tq. Shirur, Dist. Beed

¶32

Sanjivani Babaji Misal, Age : 54 years, Occu.: Service, A/p.: P.H.C. Khalapur, Tq. Shirur, Dist. Beed

¶33

Chabu Kisanrao Wagh, Age : 65 years, Occu.: Retired, A/p.: Swaraj Nivas, Visheshwar Colony, Pimpergavan, Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed

¶34

Indumati Ganaba Nagargoje, Age ; 62 years, Occu.: Retired, R/o.: Chincholi, Post. Chikhali, Tq. Patoda, Dist. Beed

¶35

Manorama Vasudeorao Tiwalkar, Age : 65 years, Occu.: Retired, A/p.: Charatha Phata, Gajanana Colony, Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed

¶36

Mangal Gajarsing Rajput, Age : 55 years, Occu.: Service, A/p.: P.H.C. Kada, Tq.Ashti, Dist. Beed

¶37

Vastala Ganpatrao Surywanshi, Age : 64 years, Occu.: Retired, A/p.: Akolner, Tq. & Dist. : Ahmednagar

¶38

5 common judgment in wp 3789-2021+

¶39

Vijaya Dharmaraj Dholshank, Age : 58 years, Occu.: Retired, At. Talegaon, Post. Palwan, Tq. & Dist. Beed

¶40

Baliram s/o Baburao Jadkar, Age : 61 years, Occu.: Retired, A/p.: Kumbephal, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed

¶41

Usha Dnyaanoba Nagargoje, Age : 54 years, Occu.: Service, A/p.: P.H.C. Dongarkini, Tq. Patoda, Dist. Beed

¶42

Prakash s/o Bhagwanrao Kulkarni, Age : 57 years, Occu.: Service, A/p.: Health Dept, Zilla Parishad, Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed

¶43

Manendra s/o Sudam Baglane, Age : 47 years, Occu.: Service, A/p.: Health Dept. Zilla Parishad, Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed

¶44

Sheshnarayan s/o Aniruddha Hatwate, Age : 48 years, Occu.: Service, A/p.: Taluka Health Officer, Majalgaon, Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed

¶45

Abasaheb s/o Bapusaheb Pandit, Age : 57 years, Occu.: Service, A/p.: Health Dept. Z. P. Beed Tq. and Dist. Beed

¶46

Sanjiwani Eaknath Ughede, Age : 53 years, Occu.: Service, A/p.: Subcenter, Nipani, Jawalka, Tq. Georai, Dist. Beed

¶47

6 common judgment in wp 3789-2021+

¶48

1. Sunita Gokulsing Bundele, Age : 50 Years, Occu.: Service, A/p.: Subcenter, Sawargaon, Tq. Georai, Dist. Beed ... PETITIONERS Versus

¶49

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Secretary, Public Health Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32

¶50

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032

¶51

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032

¶52

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Rural Development & Water Conservation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032

¶53

1. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed

¶54

1. The District Health Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed ..... RESPONDENTS ...

¶55

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. S. K. Mathpati

¶56

AGP for Respondents-State : Mr. A. S. Shinde

¶57

Advocate for Respondent Nos.5 & 6 : Mr. A. R. Tapse h/f Mr. P. D. Surywanshi

¶58

7 common judgment in wp 3789-2021+

¶59

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3801 OF 2021

¶60

1.	Madhav s/o Ramchandra Giri, Age : 38 years, Occu.: Service, R/o.: Panchyat Samiti, Loha, Tq. Loha, Dist. Nanded
2.	Arvind s/o Kishanrao Bhosale, Age : 47 years, Occu.: Service, A/p.: Primary Health Centre, Kurula, Tq. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded
3.	Ramakant s/o Kondiba Fuke, Age : 48 years, Occu.: Service, A/p.: Panchyat Samiti, Kandhar, Tq. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded
4.	Gayabai Atmaram Zagade, Age : 52 years, Occu.: Service, A/p. Panchyat Samiti, Loha, Tq. Loha, Dist. Nanded ... PETITIONERS
	Versus
1.	The State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Secretary, Rural Development and Water Conservation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
2.	The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032
3.	The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032

¶61

8 common judgment in wp 3789-2021+

¶62

The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded ..... RESPONDENTS

¶63

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. S. K. Mathpati AGP for Respondents-State : Mr. A. S. Shinde Advocate for Respondent No.4 : Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar

¶64

WITH

¶65

WRIT PETITION NO.3802 OF 2021

¶66

Padmakar s/o Dinanathrao Kanakdande, Age ; 60 years, Occu.: Retired, A/p.: Lokmitra Nagar, Purna Road, Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded ... PETITIONER

¶67

Versus

¶68

The State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Secretary, Public Health Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32

¶69

The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032

¶70

The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032

¶71

The Assistant Director, Health Service (Malaria & Felariya), Aurangabad

¶72

The District (Malaria & Felariya) Officer, Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded ..... RESPONDENTS

¶73

9 common judgment in wp 3789-2021+

¶74

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. S. K. Mathpati AGP for Respondents-State : Mr. A. S. Shinde ...

¶75

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3804 OF 2021

¶76

Rashmi w/o Ramesh Prasad, Age : 66 years, Occu.: Retired, A/p.: House No. 1243, Sai Nagar, N-6 CIDCO, Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. ... PETITIONER

¶77

Versus

¶78

The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Medical Education & Research Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai- 400 032

¶79

The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032

¶80

The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032

¶81

The Accountant General- II (A & E), Pension Wring Old Building In front of Ravi Bhavan, Nagpur, Tq. & Dist. Nagpur

¶82

The Director, Medical Education & Research, Gov. Dental College & Hospital,

¶83

10 common judgment in wp 3789-2021+

¶84

Building St. George's Hospital Compound Near V. T. Mumbai

¶85

The Dean, Government Medical College, & Hospital, Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. ..... RESPONDENTS

¶86

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. S. K. Mathpati AGP for Respondents-State : Mr. A. S. Shinde

¶87

WITH

¶88

WRIT PETITION NO.3805 OF 2021

¶89

Parshuram s/o Mahajan Shikhare, Age : 69 years, Occu.: Retired, A/p.: Bachoti, Bachoti, Tq. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded

¶90

Abdul Aziz s/o Gulamsarvar Phulwalkar, Age : 70 years, Occu.: Retired, A/p.: Phulwal Tq. Khandar, Dist. Nanded ... PETITIONERS Versus

¶91

The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Public Health Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai- 400 032

¶92

The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032

¶93

The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032

¶94

11 common judgment in wp 3789-2021+

¶95

The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Rural Development & Water Conservation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 400 032

¶96

The Chiefi Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nanded, Tq. & Dist.: Nanded ..... RESPONDENTS

¶97

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. S. K. Mathpati

¶98

AGP for Respondents-State : Mr. A. S. Shinde

¶99

Advocate for Respondent No.5 : Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar

¶100

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3808 OF 2021

¶101

Satwaji s/o Ramji Chavre, Age : 67 years, Occu.: Retired, A/p. Shriram Niwas, Chatripati Chowk, Himayat Nagar, Tq. Himayatnagar, District : Nanded

¶102

... PETITIONER

¶103

Versus

¶104

The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Rural Development & Water Conservation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032

¶105

The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032

¶106

The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary,

¶107

12 common judgment in wp 3789-2021+

¶108

General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032

¶109

The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nanded Tq. & Dist. Nanded ..... RESPONDENTS ... Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. S. K. Mathpati AGP for Respondents-State : Mr. A. S. Shinde Advocate for Respondent No.4 : Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar

¶110

WITH

¶111

WRIT PETITION NO.8784 OF 2021

¶112

Subhash s/o Ramrao Shinde, Age : 48 Years, Occu.: Service, A/p.: Z.P.P.S. Pimpriraja, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.

¶113

Pundalik s/o Kamlaji Lavte, Age : 64 Years, Occu.: Retired, A/p.: Hatti, Tq. Sillod, District : Aurangabad 3. Rajani d/o Sahebrao Chavan, Age : 50 years, Occu.: Service, A/p.: Z.P.H.S. Ranjangaon, Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad ... PETITIONERS Versus

¶114

The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32

¶115

The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary,

¶116

13 common judgment in wp 3789-2021+

¶117

Finance Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032

¶118

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032

¶119

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Rural Development & Water Conservation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032

¶120

1. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad

¶121

1. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad ..... RESPONDENTS ...

¶122

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. S. K. Mathpati

¶123

AGP for Respondents-State : Mr. A. S. Shinde

¶124

Advocate for Respondent Nos.5 & 6 : Mr. U. B. Bondar

¶125

WITH

¶126

WRIT PETITION NO.8786 OF 2021

¶127

Sandesh s/o Dattopant Lathkar, Age : 46 years, Occu.: Service, A/p.: Non Medical Supervisor, Health & Finance Welfare, Training Center, Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad

¶128

Shashikant s/o Satwaji Thotve (died) Through its legal heirs, Smt. Nisha Shashikant Thotve,

¶129

14 common judgment in wp 3789-2021+

¶130

Age : 45 years, Occu.; Nil, A/p.: A-28, Disha Gharkul, by pass, Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad

¶131

Sudhakar s/o Pandurang Limkar, Age : 67 years, Occu.: Retired, A/p.: Ramesh Chetty, Near Dakshinmukhi Hanuman Temple, Prabhawati Nagar (West), Parbhani, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani

¶132

Rajeshwar s/o Pandharinath Kendre, Age : 45 years, Occu.: Service, A/p.: Assistant Director of Health Service (Leprosy), Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur

¶133

Sandeep s/o Rusthumrao Dhondge, Age : 45 years, Occu.: Service, A/p.: Assistant Director of Health Service (Leprosy), Parbhani, Tq. and Dist. Parbhani

¶134

Maroti s/o Pandurang Motarge, Age : 45 years, Occu.: Service, A/p.: Assistant Director of Health Service (Leprosy), Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded

¶135

Sharad s/o Vasant Kulkarni, Age : 51 years, Occu.: Service, A/p.: Assistant Director of Health Service (Leprosy), Solapur, Tq. North Solapur, Dist. Solapur

¶136

Shamsundar s/o Uttamrao Gholve, Age : 50 years, Occu.: Service, A/p.: Noth Solapur, Dist. Solapur

¶137

15 common judgment in wp 3789-2021+

¶138

Bajrang s/o Pandurang Deokar, Age : 54 years, Occu.; Service, A/p.: Assistant Director of Health Service (Leprosy) Office, Civil Hospital Compound, Sangli, Tq. Miraj, Dist. Sangli

¶139

Pravin s/o Shridhar Patil, Age : 51 years, Occu.: Service, A/p.: Health & Family Welfare, Training Center, Nashik, Tq. & Dist. Nashik

¶140

Ravindra s/o Jaysing Sabale, Age : 53 years Occu.: Service, A/p.: Assistant Director of Health, Service (Leprosy), Satara, Tq. & Dist. Satara

¶141

Jilot s/o Daji Valvi, Age : 53 years, Occu.: Service, A/p.: Assistant Director of Health Service (Leprosy), Nandurbar, Civil Hospital Compound, Tapi Building, Nandurbar, Tq. & Dist. Nandurbar

¶142

Vishnu s/o Eknathrao Ghuge, Age : 48 years, Occu.: Service, A/p.: Non Medical Supervisor, Assistant Director, Health Service, Parbhani, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani

¶143

Shivaji s/o Shesherao Phale, Age : 51 years, Occu.: Service, A/p.: Non Medical Supervisor, Nagpur, Tq. & Dist. Nagpur ... PETITIONERS

¶144

16 common judgment in wp 3789-2021+

¶145

Versus

¶146

The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Public Health Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32

¶147

The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032

¶148

The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032

¶149

The Accountant General -II (A & E) Pension Wing Old Building In front of Ravi Bhavan, Nagpur, Tq. & Dist. Nagpur

¶150

The Joint Director Health Services (Leprosy and T.B.), Arogya Bhavan, Alandi Road, Vishrantwadi, Pune- 411006, Tq. and Dist. Pune ..... RESPONDENTS ...

¶151

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. S. K. Mathpati

¶152

AGP for Respondents-State : Mr. A. S. Shinde

¶153

WITH

¶154

WRIT PETITION NO.8788 OF 2021

¶155

Anil s/o Ambadasrao Narwade, Age : 53 years, Occu.; Service, A/p.: Government Medical College and Hospital, Aurangabad, Tq. and Dist. Aurangabad ... PETITIONER

¶156

17 common judgment in wp 3789-2021+

¶157

	Versus
1.	The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Public Health Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
2.	The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032
3.	The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032
4.	The Director, Medical Education & Research, Gov. Dental College & Hospital, Building St. George's Hospital, Compound Near V. T. Mumbai
5.	The Dean, Dr. Shankarrao Chavan Government Medical College, Nanded, Tq. and Dist. Nanded
6.	The Dean, Government Medical College & Hospital, Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. ..... RESPONDENTS
	... Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. S. K. Mathpati AGP for Respondents-State : Mr. A. S. Shinde ..

¶158

18 common judgment in wp 3789-2021+

¶159

CORAM : C. V. BHADANG AND SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.

¶160

DATED : 21 JULY 2022.

¶161

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.) :

¶162

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned AGP for the respondents-State waives service. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

¶163

By way of all these writ petitions, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioners therein, are seeking quashing of government resolution dated 24 August 2017 to the extent of denial of benefits of one or two advance increments to the employees, who have been given benefit of Sixth Pay Commission, applied in retrospective manner. The petitioners have also claimed that respective orders in concerned writ petitions against them by which the earlier benefit of grant of one or two advance increments, was withdrawn by the concerned respondents in all these writ petition be set aside and to restore the respective orders as mentioned in the concerned writ petitions by which they were granted with such benefit.

¶164

According to the petitioners, they are duly appointed in different establishments on their respective posts as mentioned in all these petitions by following due process of law. It is further submitted that with an intention to encourage to do excellent / outstanding work in their respective field by the employees, the Government of Maharashtra declared one or two advance increments to the employees as per

¶165

19 common judgment in wp 3789-2021+

¶166

government resolution dated 20 June 1989. Accordingly, all these petitioners in pursuance to the said government resolution got one or two advance increments for their excellent work under the respective orders as mentioned in each of these petitions. It is to be noted that the petitioners were held entitled for such benefit, which was to be in addition to the regular yearly increment. Pursuant to those respective orders, the pay of all these petitioners was fixed and entries to that effect were also taken in their respective service books.

¶167

Then, Central Government introduced Sixth Pay Commission and respondent No.2 on the recommendation of Central Government, appointed a committee under the Chairmanship of P. M. Hakim on 23 September 2008. Then, respondent No.2 issued government resolution dated 27 February 2009 accepting the recommendations / report of Hakim Committee with certain modification in respect of the pay structure and revised pension formula as per Sixth Pay Commission. Thereafter, respondent No.3 issued circular dated 3 July 2009. It is further contended by the petitioner that the Government of Maharashtra did not take any decision on Clause No.3.24 of the government resolution dated 27 February 2009, but one or two advance increments had already been granted in favour of some of the employees in the year 2006 to 2009 and their pay fixation was done. However, the government has assured under circular dated 3 July 2009 and kept pending issue with some of them and kept them away from the aforesaid benefits till today. Thereafter, without giving any notice or an opportunity of hearing, respondent authority also started recovery of one

¶168

20 common judgment in wp 3789-2021+

¶169

or two advance increments from some the petitioners by refixing their pay without advance increments. The petitioners have submitted that as the government did not take any decision on the aforesaid subject, even when they were entitled to the said benefits of one or two advance increments on the basis of their C.R. Reports, they had to inquire about the same. At the relevant time, respondent No.5 orally stated to them that the provision of advance increment is not available in Sixth Pay Commission and therefore, this issue is pending before the government. It was also told to the petitioners that as and when the government takes decision, the benefits of one advance increment would be provided to them.

¶170

However, respondent No. 3 surprisingly took the decision on the basis of recommendation of Clause No.3.24 of the State Pay Revised Committee 2008 and government circular dated 3 July 2009 and then introduced new government resolution dated 24 August 2017 ( impugned government resolution). Under this government resolution, respondent No.3 has denied the benefit of aforesaid advance increments to the petitioners by giving retrospective effect. This government resolution provides that benefits of advance increment should not be granted to those employees. According to the petitioners, such withdrawal of the benefits already granted to them, cannot be done retrospectively under the government resolution dated 24 August 2017. Hence, this writ petition.

¶171

We have carefully gone through the documents on record in the light of submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners,

¶172

21 common judgment in wp 3789-2021+

¶173

the learned AGP as well as the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 5 and 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon following judgments of the Supreme Court and this court at Aurangabad Bench as well as at Principal Seat at Bombay.

¶174

State of Pubjab and others etc. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc, 2014 DGLS (SC) 1064;

¶175

Writ Petition No. 8447 of 2019 (Sharad Prabhakar Munde and others vs. The State of Maharashtra and others) decided on 7 October 2019 (Bench at Aurangabad);

¶176

Writ Petition No.12699 of 2018 ( Ravindra Vana Patil vs. The State of Maharashtra and others) and other connected writ petitons, decided on 3 April 2019 (Bench at Aurangabad);

¶177

Writ Petition No.4050 of 2017 ( Uday J. Godave and others vs. The State of Maharashtra and others), decided on 22 October 2020 ( Principal Seat at Bombay);

¶178

Writ Petition (ST) No. 1438 of 2021 (Sanjiv R. Patil and others vs. The State of Maharashtra and others), decided on 4 May 2021 (Principal Seat at Bombay) and

¶179

Writ Petition No. 12531 of 2019 ( Raosaheb Shripati Desai and others vs. The State of Maharashtra) and connected writ petitions, decided on 1 April 2021 (Principal Seat at Bombay).

¶180

It is significant to note that the similarly situated employees as that of the present petitioners, had approached this court Bench at Aurangabad by way of Writ Petition No. 8447 of 2019 for challenging the government resolution dated 24 August 2017 passed by respondent No.3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the

¶181

22 common judgment in wp 3789-2021+

¶182

issue whether the impugned government resolution dated 24 August 2017 is retrospective is no longer res-integra. This court in the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 8447 of 2019 has already declared that the government resolution dated 24 August 2017 would be having prospective effect and not retrospective and in that case benefit that was accorded to petitioners of excellent work in the year 2006, 2007 and 2008, should not be withdrawn and if any recovery is made pursuant to the same, it shall be refunded to the petitioners.

¶183

Similarly, this court at Aurangabad Bench has also passed similar orders in a bunch of writ petitions i.e. Writ Petition No.14950 of 2017 and other connected matters. This court in the aforesaid judgment dated 3 April 2019 has made following observations :

¶184

"1. It is submitted that, petitioners in these Writ Petitions are awarded certificate of excellent work and advance increments in the year 2006 to 2008. They are given benefit of advance increments and same was also paid. However, now for some of the petitioners recovery is claimed and for some of the petitioners benefit is not extended. If the petitioners are already granted certificate of excellent work in the year 2006, 207 and 2008, then same cannot be withdrawn retrospectively on the basis of subsequent government resolution.

¶185

The same view was taken by us in Writ Petition No. 1954 of 2018 with other connected Writ Petitions under order dated 25.01.2019.

¶186

The government resolution dated 24.08.2017 will have prospective effect and not retrospective and in that case benefit that was accorded to petitioners of excellent work in the year 2006, 2007 and 2008,

¶187

23 common judgment in wp 3789-2021+

¶188

shall not be withdrawn and if any recovery is made pursuant to the same, same shall be refunded to the petitioners.

¶189

In the light of the above, Writ Petitions are disposed of. No cost."

¶190

Not only this but this court in the following judgments in a bunch of writ petitions bearing Writ Petition No. 12531 of 2019 and others, Writ Petition No. 4050 of 2017 and Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 1438 of 2021 at the Principal Seat at Bombay, has also taken similar view.

¶191

Thus, in the light of the consistent view taken by this court in various earlier writ petitions involving the same issue, it has been amply made clear that the benefit granted to the petitioners and other similarly situated employees awarding one or two advance increments for their excellent work during years 2006 to 2008, cannot be retrospectively withdrawn under the government resolution dated 24 August 2017. Thus, this court has already declared that the government resolution dated 24 August 2017 will have prospective effect and therefore, the benefits, which were accorded to the petitioners and the similarly situated other employees for excellent work in the year 2006, 2007 and 2008, should not be withdrawn. It is also clarified further that if any recovery is made pursuant to the aforesaid government resolution, the same shall be refunded to the petitioners.

¶192

In the instant petitions, it is not in dispute that the petitioners therein are accorded with benefits of excellent work by way of one or two advance increments prior to coming into force of government resolution

¶193

24 common judgment in wp 3789-2021+

¶194

dated 24 August 2017. Therefore, in the light of observations made by court in the aforesaid earlier judgments, the benefits given to all these petitioners from their concerned employer in form of grant of one or two advance increments for their excellent work, cannot be withdrawn under government resolution dated 24 August 2017 and that too by making it applicable retrospectively. Therefore, when the issue involved in all these petitions is already covered under earlier judgments of this court as mentioned above, there is no need to take different view in the instant writ petitions.

¶195

In such circumstances, all the petitions are allowed. The benefit of one or two advance increments, if any granted to the petitioners for excellent / outstanding work under the orders referred to in these petitions, shall not be withdrawn, placing reliance on the Government Resolution dated 24 August 2017. The amount, if any recovered on account of withdrawal of any such benefit, shall be refunded to the petitioners. The respondents are further directed to pay / release the monetary benefits arising out of grant of such additional increments, if any, by fixation of their pay-scales, if not already done.

¶196

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs.

¶197

SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J. C. V. BHADANG, J.

¶198

VS Maind/-

Sachin Khanderao Dhumale v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Khanderao Dhumale 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

Sunil Revansiddappa Utage and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sangli Urban Co. Op Bank Ltd., Sangli through Its Recovery Officer Vs Surana Builders and Developers Surana Sadan Ambejogai Thorugh Its Proprietor and Others

Kailas Hari Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Devsthan Maruti Mandir Golangri Thr Its President Tatyasaheb Bhausaheb Kavade Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Others

The Education Officer Primary and Others Vs Balaji Madhavrao Kanole and Others

Shanta Narayanrao Vaidya and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others