Partly allowed

Shivram Shantaram More and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary the Dept. of General Administration and Anr.

Bombay HC24 Jul 2024WP/19/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court declared that the Government Resolution dated 24th August, 2017 discontinuing advance increments operates prospectively. Petitioners were held eligible for advance increments granted prior to this date, and consequential benefits were directed to be paid within 90 days.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners eligible for advance increments prior to 24.08.2017; recovered amount to be paid within 45 days with consequential benefits within 90 days.

Shivram Shantaram More and Ors. vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

Digitally signed by GAURI GAURI AMIT AMIT GAEKWAD GAEKWAD Date: 2024.12.07 10:56:29 +0530

¶2

173.WP-19-2024.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.19 OF 2024

¶5

Shivram Shantaram More and Ors. ….Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Maharashtra and Ors. ....Respondents

¶8

Mr. Mahesh V. Rawool for the Petitioners. Ms. Neha Bhide, GP a/w. Mr. A.K. Naik, AGP for the State. Mr. Pankaj Deokar for Respondent No.3.

¶9

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &

¶10

ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.

¶11

DATE : 3^rd DECEMBER, 2024

¶12

FINAL ORDER (Per Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.) :-

¶13

The Petitioners are identically placed. All of them refer

¶14

to the Government Resolution dated 24^th August, 2017 insofar as grant of advance increment is concerned. By the said Government Resolution, a decision was taken not to continue with the benefit of

¶15

advance increment during the 6^th Pay Commission regime in between 1^st October, 2006 to 1^st October, 2015.

¶16

In various judgments of this Court, it was consistently held that the Government Resolution dated 24^th August, 2017, would operate prospectively and would not have the effect of retrospective denial of advance increments. The State Government and various

1 of 6

Gauri Gaekwad

173.WP-19-2024.odt

Zilla Parishads had filed Review Petitions seeking review of various orders passed by this Court. It was inter-alia sought to be contended in the said Review Petitions that, even though the ultimate decision for stoppage of the scheme for advance increments might have been taken on 24^th August, 2017, it was earlier directed by way of a Circular dated 3^rd July, 2009, to undertake the exercise of pay fixation as per the 6^th Pay Commission Pay scales without taking into consideration the advance increments.

¶21

By judgment and order dated 30^th August, 2022, this Court has rejected the Review Petitions after considering all the objections raised by the State Government. It was held that, no specific instructions were issued before 24^th August, 2017 for discontinuation of the scheme of advance increments. Paragraph Nos.12 to 15 of the judgment and order dated 30^th August, 2022, passed in Review Application (Civil) No.170 of 2022 in Writ Petition No.13760 of 2019 ( The State of Maharashtra and Anr. vs. Rupchand S/o. Narayan Shinde and Ors. ), read as under :

¶22

“12. After having heard learned Counsels at length, we find that the review applicants have not been able to point out any specific instructions issued prior to 24.08.2017/04.09.2018 for discontinuation of the schemes for grant of advance increments. Government Resolution dated 27.02.2009 and Circular dated 03.07.2009

2 of 6

Gauri Gaekwad

173.WP-19-2024.odt

do not indicate that any final decision was taken for discontinuation of schemes for advance increments. We proceed to examine the Government Resolution dated 27.02.2009 and Circular dated 03.07.2009 in details.

¶27

Government Resolution dated 27.02.2009 came to be issued by the State Government essentially for conveying the decision of the State Government about acceptance or otherwise of various recommendations made by the Hakim Committee constituted for implementation of recommendations of the 6^th Central Pay Commission. In Annexure to the said Government Resolution, each recommendation and decision of the State Government thereon have been enumerated. So far as the scheme for advance increment is concerned, the same is to be found at serial number 27 of the Annexure (para 3.24 of Committees Report). In that paragraph, the Committee recommended that for employees/ Officers rendering outstanding service, increment @ 4% be awarded instead of 3% and such increment be granted once in 5 years. It was further recommended that since increment at higher rate was being granted, the then existing scheme for grant of one or two advance increments be discontinued. However, in the column ‘Decision of State Government’ against para 3.24, remark is made stating that ‘separate action would be taken by General Administration Department’. As against various other recommendations, the remark ‘accepted’ has been made. The recommendation made in para 3.24 by the Hakim Committee was not accepted at least on the date of issuance of Government Resolution dated 27.02.2009 and General Administration Department was to take a decision thereon separately. Thus, it cannot be inferred that any specific decision was taken by the State Government on 27.02.2009 for discontinuation of scheme for grant of advance increment. Therefore, we do not find that the orders under

3 of 6

Gauri Gaekwad

173.WP-19-2024.odt

review need to be disturbed on the basis of the Government Resolution dated 27.02.2009.

¶32

Now, we come to the Circular dated 03.07.2009. By the said Circular, it was directed that the issue of discontinuation of scheme for grant of advance increment was under consideration with the State Government and that some time was required for taking final decision. Therefore, it was further directed that temporarily the pay fixation of the employees in the 6^th Pay Commission scales be made without considering the advance increments. Thus, the Circular dated 03.07.2009 was clearly issued as a temporary measure. The said circular did not communicate any decision to the effect that the State Government discontinued the scheme for grant of advance increments. Therefore, we find that the reliance of Mr. Dixit on the Circular dated 03.07.2009 is again of no avail.

¶33

We have carefully gone through the Government Resolution dated 24.08.2017 and Circular dated 04.09.2018. By the Government Resolution dated 24.08.2017, final decision came to be taken in respect of recommendation made by the Hakim Committee in para 3.24 of its report directing that during the period from 01.10.2006 to 01.10.2015 when revised pay scales as per 6th Pay Commission were admissible, the benefit of advance increments should not be granted. Thus, the final decision on para 3.24 of Committees Report was taken by the State Government only on 24.08.2017. However, instead of simply directing that the scheme for grant of advance increments is discontinued, the State Government sought to give retrospective effect to its decision by directing that the benefit of such advance increments be not given during the period from 01.10.2006 to 01.10.2015. While issuing such orders having retrospective effect, the State Government lost sight of the fact that several employees were already granted the benefit of

4 of 6

Gauri Gaekwad

173.WP-19-2024.odt

advance increments during the relevant period. As we have observed earlier, the deliberations for discontinuation of the scheme started only on 27.02.2009/03.07.2009 and prior to that, admittedly, the issue of discontinuation of the scheme for grant of advance increment was not even under consideration. The instructions for temporarily doing pay fixation without advance increments were issued on 03.07.2009. This means that several employees must have already been granted advance increments during the period from 01.10.2006 to 03.07.2009. We, therefore, fail to comprehend as to how the State Government could have issued directions on 24.08.2017 that the benefit of advance increments should not be granted from 01.10.2006 onwards. Even in respect of employees becoming eligible for grant of advance increments after 27.02.2009, we do not find any error in the view taken by this Court that the Government Resolution dated 27.08.2017 would only have prospective effect.”

¶38

Thus, it is now a well settled position that the scheme

¶39

of grant of advance increments was discontinued for the first time by the Government Resolution, dated 24^th August, 2017 and that, such decision would only operate prospectively.

¶40

This Petition is, therefore, disposed off with the declaration that the Government Resolution dated 24^th August, 2017, would apply prospectively. The Petitioners in this Petition are held

¶41

to be eligible for grant of advance increments for outstanding work, prior to 24^th August, 2017. Since the Petitioners are not claiming

5 of 6

Gauri Gaekwad

173.WP-19-2024.odt

interest, the recovered amount shall be paid to the Petitioners within a period of 45 days, failing which, the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% from the date of recovery, till it is actually paid. All consequential benefits be calculated by adding up the said advance increments. Since the Petitioners have superannuated, all consequential benefits post recalculation, be paid to the Petitioners within 90 days.

¶46

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

¶47

6 of 6

¶48

Gauri Gaekwad

Shivram Shantaram More and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary the Dept. of General Administration and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivram Shantaram More and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary the Dept. of General Administration and Anr.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shamshuddin Umarali Mushrif vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Ors.

Karan Sanjay Lokhande vs the State of Maharashtra Thorugh Its Secretary

Shri. Mansing Dinkar Patil vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, School Edu. and Sports Dept. and Ors.

Pramod Anant Kamble vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary and Ors.

Lalit C. Joshi vs the Chairman and Managing Director Bank of Baroda and 2 Ors.

Cavas R Majai vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai