Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, S.G. DIGE, JJ.
Jaishree Trimbak Takalkar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Writ Petition No.1082 of 2021
Decided on : 05-04-2022
Services - Salary Hike - Benefits In Pay-Scale - Whether this Court should ignore some promotional avenues or some salary hike having been received by candidates, as being insignificant - Whether nomenclature of post occupied by candidate could be sole criterion to decide - Whether the candidate has got stagnated for 12 years – Held, It cannot be ignored that, these assured promotional benefits in pay-scale are only to be granted after a candidate suffers a stagnation for 12 years - From case in hands, Court is of view that, these petitioners were made aware that, if they completed six months advanced training course of Promotional Stepladder Midwifery ANM, part of their nomenclature ‘Down Grade’ would stand deleted, inasmuch as, their pay-scale would be enhanced to Rs.1200-1800 - All along, these petitioners were informed that such is the promotional stepladder course benefit available to them - Learned Advocate for petitioners has relied upon Government Resolution issued by Department of Rural Development and Water Conservation - This is in connection with Engineering Section in Sate of Maharashtra and has nothing to do with services of ANMs - In Court view, this Government Resolution would be of no assistance to case of petitioners - Hon’ble Apex Court concluded that, such time bound promotional pay scales cannot be held back for reason of transfer and seniority of appellants would be reckoned from date they have joined their earlier departments, before being transferred in public interest - As such, facts in case of Dwijen Chandra Sarkar (supra), are completely distinct and different from facts in all cases in hands - In light of above, it appears that Zilla Parishad noticed it’s mistake of wrongly reckoning 12 years period from date of the joining of these petitioners, while granting benefit for first time - This mistake was noticed and was subsequently cured by impugned order - This was done in backdrop of these petitioners, having been held ineligible for second assured promotional pay-scale benefits, as in second lap of 12 years, they were unable to complete 12 years, since they superannuated prior thereto - In view of above, Court do not find that respondents have committed any error in arriving at such a decision, vide impugned order – Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.
2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 03/08/2020, passed by respondent No.2 and the order on verification, dated 04/04/2019, passed by respondent No.4, concluding that the petitioners would not be entitled for the second time bound promotional pay-scales, as they have retired prior to completing the second lap of 12 years, i.e. an aggregate of 24 years.
3. The petitioners have put forth the following prayers :-
B1) Quashing & setting aside the impugned orders under the challenge dt. 03.08.2020 passed by Resp. no. 2 & order on verification dt. 04.04.2019 passed buy the Resp. No. 4 issue a writ of Mandamus or a writ in the like nature and direct RESP No 2 & 3, to implement the earlier order dt. 27.02.2019 & provide consequential pensioner benefits to the petitioners within time limit as found just & proper.
C) Pending hearing & final disposal of this writ petition the Hon’ble court may be pleased to pass prohibitory order and restrain the Respondents to act upon the impugned order order dt. 03.08.2020 & direct the Resp. No. 4 to complete the verification within 2 weeks based on the earlier order dt. 27.02.2019 passed by Resp. No.2.”
4. The grievance of the petitioners is that, their services from the dates of their respective appointments should be considered as the starting point for calculating the first period of 12 years, so as to be entitled for the first benefit of the Government Resolution dated 08/06/1995, which introduced the assured time bound promotional pay-scales. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, therefore, refers to the appointment dates, which are as under :-
II) Petitioner No.2 was appointed as Auxiliary Nurse Midwife on 13/02/1989.
III) Petitioner No.3 was appointed as Auxiliary Nurse Midwife on 02/02/1985.
IV) Petitioner No.4 was appointed as Auxiliary Nurse Midwife on 09/12/1986.
V) Petitioner No.5 was appointed as Auxiliary Nurse Midwife on 13/02/1989.
5. He concedes that they completed the six months course of ‘Promotional Stepladder Midwife Training’ on 01/07/1993, 17/03/1992, 10/09/1991, 07/03/1991 and 01/07/1993, respectively.
6. His contention is that, the promotional stepladder avenue is a farce and is insignificant. These petitioners have a right to be considered from the date of their appointment, and therefore, they were rightly granted the first benefit after completion of 12 years from the dates of joining. When it came to the second level of the benefit, i.e. 12 years after receiving the first benefit, the Zilla Parishad and the State Government have taken a stand that, they are not entitled to the said benefit as the first benefit was erroneously prematurely extended to them by reckoning their first dates of appointments. His grievance is, therefore, restricted to the interpretation of the Government Resolution dated 08/06/1995 and the clarificatory Government Resolution dated 01/11/1995. He specifically refers to Clause 11 below the said Government Resolution to buttress his contention that these petitioners joined as Auxiliary Nurse Midwife (ANM) and they superannuated as ANM. There was never any change in their nomenclature or their salary. They were stagnant all along from their first dates of joining. The promotional ladder benefit is a farce and that should be ignored in the larger interest of the employees. It was a course which these petitioners underwent and that too, after the Zilla Parishad recommended their cas
An employer cannot deny an employee Time Bound Promotional benefits on the technical ground of failure to exercise an option if the employer failed to obtain such an option or provide the employee wi....
An employee is entitled to a second higher pay-scale after 15 years of service if they remain stagnated in the same pay-scale despite receiving promotions.
Promotional benefits must be granted from the actual date of promotion, not from the date of notification, ensuring equal treatment for similarly situated employees.
Administrative Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over disputes from wage settlements and collective bargaining on pay up-gradation dates; such matters fall under Industrial Disputes Act forums.
The arbitrary introduction of a cut-off date affecting an employee's entitlement to a promotional pay scale was held to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
The court ruled that the petitioners were not entitled to a higher grade pay of Rs.2800/- as they failed to demonstrate their eligibility based on the established promotional hierarchy.
The court emphasized that the mode of recruitment could not be the base of discrimination, and that similarly situated employees could not be differentiated in terms of the benefit of Time-Bound Prom....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
