Allowed

Ramesh S/O. Hirachand Nandurkar v. State of Maha. Thr. Secretary, Rural Development and Water Conservation Dept., Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC24 Nov 2022WP/2868/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition filed by a District Awardee Teacher seeking restoration of an increment benefit discontinued after the 6th Pay Commission. The Court held that the Government Resolution dated 04/09/2018 lacks retrospective effect to withdraw benefits conferred by the Circular dated 12/12/2000.

What did the court decide?

Restoration of the increment benefit of Rs. per month (unspecified amount in text) conferred on 5th September, 2007, along with arrears and consequential benefits within four months.

Ramesh S/O. Hirachand Nandurkar Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

40-J-WP-2868-21.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2868 OF 2021

¶5

PETITIONER: Ramesh S/o Hirachand Nandurkar,
 Aged about - 57 years, Occ. Service,
 R/o Ward no.2, near post office, Dharni,
 Tq. Dharni, Dist. Amravati.

¶6

V E R S U S

¶7

RESPONDENTS :

¶8

1. State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Rural Development and Water Conservation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

¶9

2. State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, School Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

¶10

3. Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division Amravati, Tq. and Dist. Amravati.

¶11

4. Zilla Parishad, Amravati through its Chief Executive Officer, Amravati, Tq. and Dist. Amravati.

¶12

5. Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Amravati, Tq. and Dist. Amravati.

¶13

Shri A. R. Deshpande, Advocate for petitioner.

¶14

Shri D. P. Thakare, Additional Government Pleaderfor respondent
Nos.1 to 3.

¶15

Shri S. M. Bhangde, Advocate for respondent Nos.4 and 5.

¶16

CORAM: SANDEEP K. SHINDE AND
MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.

¶17

JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 21/11/2022 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 24/11/2022

¶18

40-J-WP-2868-21.odt

¶19

¶20

JUDGMENT : (PER SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.)

¶21

1. Rule . Rule made returnable forthwith.

¶22

2.Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel
appearing for the parties.

¶23

3.In terms of the Circular dated 12/12/2000, issued by
the State of Maharashtra, the petitioner a District Awardee
Teacher, was conferred with, one increment on 5th September,
2007 as an incentive, for his good performance. Whereafter, upon
making 6th Pay Commission Recommendations, applicable, the
benefit of increment was discontinued. The State justified the
discontinuation, by relying on the Government Resolution dated
24/08/2017. The purport of said Government Resolution was
examined by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition
No.625/2016, at the instance of one of the District Awardees
Teacher. The Division Bench held and concluded that the said
Government Resolution ipso facto does not suggest withdrawal of
the benefit conferred on the District Awardee Teacher, in terms of
the Circular dated 12/12/2000. In the fact situation, the State was
directed to restore the benefits to the petitioner therein. Yet, in

¶24

3 40-J-WP-2868-21.odt

¶25

batch of petitions, Writ Petition Nos.5419/2018, 2033/2018,
5420/2018, 5421/2018, 5858/2018, 5859/2018 and 6474/2018,
similar issue was addressed wherein State justified the withdrawal
of the benefit, in terms of the Government Resolution dated
04/09/2018. The State sought to contend that in terms of said
Government Resolution Clause No.12 of the Circular dated
12/12/2000, by which additional increment was conferred since
has been withdrawn, the petitioners therein were not entitled to
seek restoration of one increment as incentive. The Division
Bench, took a view that Government Resolution dated
04/09/2018 does not have retrospective effect nor could have
given any retrospective effect and withdrawn benefit conferred on
Awardees. The reliance was placed on the Judgment dated
25/01/2019 in Writ Petition No.1954/2018 passed by the Bench
at Aurangabad. As such, concluded, that the Government
Resolution dated 04/09/2018 cannot be interpreted to be issued
with any retrospective effect. In Paragraph No.04, the Division
Bench has held thus :-

¶26

"04.Upon consideration of the Government
Resolution dated 04/09/2018 and also the Government
Circular dated 12/12/2000, we see no reason to strike a
different note in the matter. We are also of the opinion

¶27

4 40-J-WP-2868-21.odt

¶28

that the Government Resolution dated 04/09/2018
cannot be interpreted to be issued with any
retrospective effect. There is no clause either in the
Government Resolution dated 04/09/2018, expressly
stating that deletion of Clause 12 of Government
Circular dated 12/12/2000 shall be with retrospective
effect.After all, when it comes to withdrawal of a
monetary benefit with retrospective effect, it must be
done so in an express manner and possibly upon certain
conditions being fulfilled. Such express terms are not to
be found in Government Resolution dated 04/09/2018
and, therefore, we would reiterate this Government
Resolution has no retrospective effect. So, we are of the
view that all these petitioners are also entitled to have
the benefit of the grant of advance increment in terms
of the Government Circular dated 12/12/2000 from
such dates, as would be applicable to them and
determined to be so on merit of each of the individual
matter by the Zilla Parishads."

¶29

(emphasis supplied)

¶30

4.In view of the above, we are inclined to allow this
petition and it is allowed accordingly. In the result, the benefit of
increment conferred on the petitioner on 5th September, 2007, in
terms of Circular dated 12/12/2000 stands restored. In
consequence, the respondents shall pay the arrears and
consequential benefits, to the petitioner in accordance with the

¶31

5 40-J-WP-2868-21.odt

¶32

Circular dated 12/12/2000 and in any case within four months

¶33

from today.

¶34

5. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

¶35

[MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.]

¶36

 [SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.]

¶37

Choulwar

¶38

VITHAL Digitally signed byVITHAL MAROTRAO MAROTRAO CHOULWAR Date: 2022.11.24 CHOULWAR 18:37:19 +0530

Ramesh S/O. Hirachand Nandurkar v. State of Maha. Thr. Secretary, Rural Development and Water Conservation Dept., Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh S/O. Hirachand Nandurkar v. State of Maha. Thr. Secretary, Rural Development and Water Conservation Dept., Mumbai 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudhakar Vishnupant Bobade Vs Vanita Samaj Society, Thr. Its Secretary, Office at Rajkamal Chowk Amravati and Others

New Ramdaspeth Kachipura Nagarik Mandal, Nagpur through Joint Secretary Santosh Pardhi Vs Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Nagpur through Commissioner and Another

Mrs. Sheela U. Kale Vs Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Amravati Division, Amaravti and Others

Anup Ganesh Warodkar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Its Vocational Education and Training Department, Nagpur and 2 Ot

Pravin Bhaiyyaji Kinnake Vs Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur and Others

Milind S/O Sudhakarao Ambalkar and Others Vs Shri. Rajesh Kumar, Principal Secretary, Rural Development Dept. Mumbai and Another