Shivaji Raosaheb Kavchat And Others v. The State Of Maharashtra Thr Its Principal Secretary And Others

1 common judgment in wp 3789-2021+

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3789 OF 2021 1.

Shivaji s/o Raosaheb Kavchat, Age : 62 years, Occu.; Retired, A/p.: Shakutal Nivas, Mitra nagar, Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed Laxman s/o Sitaram Khole, Age : 66 years, Occu.: Retired, A/p.: Ganpati Nagar, June Sarsvati Vidyalay, Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed Shakuntala Bhimrao Thombare, Age : 62 years, Occu.: Retired, A/p.: Near New Bus Stand, Shirur Kasar, Tq. Shirur, Dist. Beed Bhaskar s/o Khandurao Shinghan, Age : 60 years, Occu.: REtired, A/p.: Barshi Naka, Beed, Tq. and Dist. Beed 5.

Shivaji s/o Gangaram Dharne, Age : 64 years, Occu.: Retired, A/p.: Koshti Galli, Ambejogai, Tq. Ambejogai, Dist. Beed 6.

Vatsala Vishwanath Hoke, Age : 63 years, occu.: Retired, A/p.: Near Mahadeo Mandir, Talkhed, Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed 7.

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

2 common judgment in wp 3789-2021+ 8.

Ramakant s/o Shivajirao Panchal, Age : 60 years, Occu.: Retired, A/p.: Pus, Ambejogai, Tq. Ambejogai, Dist. Beed 9.

Siddiharth s/o Shivajrao Jagatkar, Age : 56 years, Occu.: Service, A/p.: P.H.C. Nagapur, Tq. Parli, Dist. Beed 10.

Baban s/o Shantiling Honrao, Age : 66 years, Occu.: Retired, A/p.: Virshaiv Colony, Near Police Station, Peth, Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed 11.

Malan Damodhar Kasule, Age : 67 years, Occu.: Retired, A/p.: Kasalwadi, Tq. Pathardi, Dist : Ahmednagar 12.

Keshar Maruti Shinde, Age : 62 years, Occu.: Retired, A/p.: Tilak Nagar, Y\eshvantrao Chauk, Ambejogai, Tq. Ambejogai, Dist. Beed 13.

Minakshi Limbaji Dhakane, Age : 52 years, Occu.: Service, A/p.: P.H.C. Wahali, Tq. Patoda, Dist.: Beed 14.

Arjun s/o Deorao Anarase, Age : 56 years, Occu.: Service, A/p.: P.H.C. Dhamagaon, Tq. Ashti, Dist. Beed 15.

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

3 common judgment in wp 3789-2021+ 16.

Sominath s/o Deorao Dhas, Age : 62 years, Occu.: Retired, A/p.: Mauli Nivas, Vinayak Nagar, Murshadpur, Ashti, Tq. Ashti, Dist. Beed 17.

Gangu Shankar Bhailume, Age : 67 years, Occu.: Retired, A/p.: Jai Nivas, Tapaneswar, Jamkhed Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahmednagar 18.

Gopichand s/o Vitthalrao Mendke, Age : 66 years, Occu.: Retired, A/p.: Postman Colony, Pangari Road, Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed 19.

Avinash s/o Devidas Salukhe, Age : 65 years, Occu.: Retired, A/p.: Chalkamba, Tq. Georai, Dist. Beed 20.

Parmeshwar s/o Laxman Adhapure, Age : 62 years, Occu.: Retired, A/p.: Rupam Residency, Bhushan Nagar, Link Road, Kedgaon, Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar 21.

Haribhau s/o Dattatrayarao Jadhawar, Age : 61 years, Occu.: Retired, A/p.: Kutewadi, Parner, Tq. Patoda, Dist. Beed 22.

Bhanudas s/o Dadarao Tangade, Age : 57 years, Occu.: Service, A/p.: P.H.C. Tadsonna, Tq. & Dist. Beed 23.

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

4 common judgment in wp 3789-2021+ 24.

Sampartao s/o Sambhajirao Haral, Age : 65 years, Occu.: Retired, A/p.: Pitaji Nagar, Majalgaon, Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed 25.

Rajubai Nivratti Thorat, Age : 57 Years, Occu.: Service, A/p.: P.H.C. Khalapuri, Tq. Shirur, Dist. Beed 26.

Sanjivani Babaji Misal, Age : 54 years, Occu.: Service, A/p.: P.H.C. Khalapur, Tq. Shirur, Dist. Beed 27.

Chabu Kisanrao Wagh, Age : 65 years, Occu.: Retired, A/p.: Swaraj Nivas, Visheshwar Colony, Pimpergavan, Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed 28.

Indumati Ganaba Nagargoje, Age ; 62 years, Occu.: Retired, R/o.: Chincholi, Post. Chikhali, Tq. Patoda, Dist. Beed 29.

Manorama Vasudeorao Tiwalkar, Age : 65 years, Occu.: Retired, A/p.: Charatha Phata, Gajanana Colony, Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed 30.

Mangal Gajarsing Rajput, Age : 55 years, Occu.: Service, A/p.: P.H.C. Kada, Tq.Ashti, Dist. Beed 31.

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

5 common judgment in wp 3789-2021+ 32.

Vijaya Dharmaraj Dholshank, Age : 58 years, Occu.: Retired, At. Talegaon, Post. Palwan, Tq. & Dist. Beed 33.

Baliram s/o Baburao Jadkar, Age : 61 years, Occu.: Retired, A/p.: Kumbephal, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed 34.

Usha Dnyaanoba Nagargoje, Age : 54 years, Occu.: Service, A/p.: P.H.C. Dongarkini, Tq. Patoda, Dist. Beed 35.

Prakash s/o Bhagwanrao Kulkarni, Age : 57 years, Occu.: Service, A/p.: Health Dept, Zilla Parishad, Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed 36.

Manendra s/o Sudam Baglane, Age : 47 years, Occu.: Service, A/p.: Health Dept. Zilla Parishad, Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed 37.

Sheshnarayan s/o Aniruddha Hatwate, Age : 48 years, Occu.: Service, A/p.: Taluka Health Officer, Majalgaon, Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed 38.

Abasaheb s/o Bapusaheb Pandit, Age : 57 years, Occu.: Service, A/p.: Health Dept. Z. P. Beed Tq. and Dist. Beed 39.

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

6 common judgment in wp 3789-2021+ 40.

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

PETITIONERS

Versus

1.

The State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Secretary, Public Health Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032 The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032 The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Rural Development & Water Conservation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032 5.

The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed 6.

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

RESPONDENTS ...

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. S. K. Mathpati AGP for Respondents-State : Mr. A. S. Shinde Advocate for Respondent Nos.5 & 6 : Mr. A. R. Tapse h/f Mr. P. D. Surywanshi

7 common judgment in wp 3789-2021+ WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3801 OF 2021 1.

Madhav s/o Ramchandra Giri, Age : 38 years, Occu.: Service, R/o.: Panchyat Samiti, Loha, Tq. Loha, Dist. Nanded Arvind s/o Kishanrao Bhosale, Age : 47 years, Occu.: Service, A/p.: Primary Health Centre, Kurula, Tq. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded Ramakant s/o Kondiba Fuke, Age : 48 years, Occu.: Service, A/p.: Panchyat Samiti, Kandhar, Tq. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded 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 The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032 The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032

8 common judgment in wp 3789-2021+ 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 ...

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3802 OF 2021 Padmakar s/o Dinanathrao Kanakdande, Age ; 60 years, Occu.: Retired, A/p.: Lokmitra Nagar, Purna Road, Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded ...

PETITIONER

Versus

1.

The State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Secretary, Public Health Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032 The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032 The Assistant Director, Health Service (Malaria & Felariya), Aurangabad 5.

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

RESPONDENTS

9 common judgment in wp 3789-2021+ ...

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

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3804 OF 2021 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

Versus

1.

The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Medical Education & Research Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai- 400 032 The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032 The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032 The Accountant General- II (A & E), Pension Wring Old Building In front of Ravi Bhavan, Nagpur, Tq. & Dist. Nagpur 5.

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

10 common judgment in wp 3789-2021+ Building St. George's Hospital Compound Near V. T. Mumbai 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 ....

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3805 OF 2021 1.

Parshuram s/o Mahajan Shikhare, Age : 69 years, Occu.: Retired, A/p.: Bachoti, Bachoti, Tq. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded Abdul Aziz s/o Gulamsarvar Phulwalkar, Age : 70 years, Occu.: Retired, A/p.: Phulwal Tq. Khandar, Dist. Nanded ...

PETITIONERS

Versus

1.

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

11 common judgment in wp 3789-2021+ The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Rural Development & Water Conservation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 400 032 5.

The Chiefi 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.5 : Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar ..

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3808 OF 2021 Satwaji s/o Ramji Chavre, Age : 67 years, Occu.: Retired, A/p. Shriram Niwas, Chatripati Chowk, Himayat Nagar, Tq. Himayatnagar, District : Nanded ...

PETITIONER

Versus

1.

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

12 common judgment in wp 3789-2021+ General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032 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 ......

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8784 OF 2021 1.

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

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

PETITIONERS

Versus

1.

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

13 common judgment in wp 3789-2021+ Finance Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032 The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032 The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Rural Development & Water Conservation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032 5.

The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad 6.

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

RESPONDENTS ...

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. S. K. Mathpati AGP for Respondents-State : Mr. A. S. Shinde Advocate for Respondent Nos.5 & 6 : Mr. U. B. Bondar ...

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8786 OF 2021 1.

Sandesh s/o Dattopant Lathkar, Age : 46 years, Occu.: Service, A/p.: Non Medical Supervisor, Health & Finance Welfare, Training Center, Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad Shashikant s/o Satwaji Thotve (died) Through its legal heirs, Smt. Nisha Shashikant Thotve,

14 common judgment in wp 3789-2021+ Age : 45 years, Occu.; Nil, A/p.: A-28, Disha Gharkul, by pass, Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad 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 Rajeshwar s/o Pandharinath Kendre, Age : 45 years, Occu.: Service, A/p.: Assistant Director of Health Service (Leprosy), Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur 5.

Sandeep s/o Rusthumrao Dhondge, Age : 45 years, Occu.: Service, A/p.: Assistant Director of Health Service (Leprosy), Parbhani, Tq. and Dist. Parbhani 6.

Maroti s/o Pandurang Motarge, Age : 45 years, Occu.: Service, A/p.: Assistant Director of Health Service (Leprosy), Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded 7.

Sharad s/o Vasant Kulkarni, Age : 51 years, Occu.: Service, A/p.: Assistant Director of Health Service (Leprosy), Solapur, Tq. North Solapur, Dist. Solapur 8.

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

15 common judgment in wp 3789-2021+ 9.

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 10.

Pravin s/o Shridhar Patil, Age : 51 years, Occu.: Service, A/p.: Health & Family Welfare, Training Center, Nashik, Tq. & Dist. Nashik 11.

Ravindra s/o Jaysing Sabale, Age : 53 years Occu.: Service, A/p.: Assistant Director of Health, Service (Leprosy), Satara, Tq. & Dist. Satara 12.

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 13.

Vishnu s/o Eknathrao Ghuge, Age : 48 years, Occu.: Service, A/p.: Non Medical Supervisor, Assistant Director, Health Service, Parbhani, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani 14.

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

PETITIONERS

16 common judgment in wp 3789-2021+

Versus

1.

The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Public Health Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032 The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032 The Accountant General -II (A & E) Pension Wing Old Building In front of Ravi Bhavan, Nagpur, Tq. & Dist. Nagpur 5.

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

RESPONDENTS ...

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

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8788 OF 2021 Anil s/o Ambadasrao Narwade, Age : 53 years, Occu.; Service, A/p.: Government Medical College and Hospital, Aurangabad, Tq. and Dist. Aurangabad ...

PETITIONER

17 common judgment in wp 3789-2021+

Versus

1.

The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Public Health Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032 The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032 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 ..

18 common judgment in wp 3789-2021+ CORAM : C. V. BHADANG AND SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.

DATED : 21 JULY 2022.

....

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.) : Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned AGP for the respondents-State waives service. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 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. 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.

19 common judgment in wp 3789-2021+ 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. 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.

20 common judgment in wp 3789-2021+ 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.

5.

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.

6.

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

21 common judgment in wp 3789-2021+ 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. 1.

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

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);

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);

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);

5.

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 6.

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).

7.

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

22 common judgment in wp 3789-2021+ 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. 8.

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 : "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.

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.

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,

23 common judgment in wp 3789-2021+ shall not be withdrawn and if any recovery is made pursuant to the same, same shall be refunded to the petitioners.

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

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. 9.

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.

10.

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

24 common judgment in wp 3789-2021+ 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.

11.

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

SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.

C. V. BHADANG, J.

VS Maind/-