← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/10587/2017dismissedrule discharged

Najuk Shankarrao Deshmukh And Others v. The Secretary To The Goverbnment Of Maharashtra General Administration Department Mumbai And Others

2017-08-31Hon'Ble Shri Justice S V Gangapurwala,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Mangesh S. Patil3 pages

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10587 OF 2017 NAJUK SHANKARRAO DESHMUKH AND OTHERS

VERSUS

THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERBNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT ...

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr.S.D.Dhongade h/f Sandeep G Kulkarni AGP for Respondents: Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar for R.1 to 4. ...

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA & MANGESH S. PATIL,JJ.

DATE : 31/08/2017 PER COURT :- The petitioner assails judgment of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dismissing the Original Application. The petitioner had prayed to grant the grade pay of Rs.4200/- w.e.f. 1/1/2006. The petitioner appears to have filed Original Application on 8/1/2015 before the Tribunal.

2] Mr.Dhongade, learned counsel submits that upto 5 Pay Commission, grade pay and the pay scale granted to the petitioner and the other employees were similar, however, because of the Government Resolution in the year 2001, disparity is made in respect of the grade pay. The petitioner is required to be granted grade pay

-2of Rs.4200/- for the persons working as Karkoons since 1/1/2006. According to the learned counsel, there is no difference in the nature of the work, the educational qualification. The petitioners are brought on C.R.T. and as such are to be treated as regular employees. According to the learned counsel, the Tribunal has not considered the Kalelkar Award in its correct perspective. The learned counsel submits that rule of equal pay for equal work is required to be applied.

3] The learned AGP supports the order.

4] It is stated that pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 28/07/2001, the disparity in the grade pay has arisen. The petitioner has nowhere challenged the said Government Resolution. In the Original Application only prayer was made to grant grade pay of Rs.4200/-.

5] The Tribunal has observed that the petitioners are working on various posts like Karkoon, Pump Operators, Wireless Operator, driver etc. on C.R.T.E. The said posts are supernumerary posts and not sanctioned posts. The nature and duties are also different. The post of Karkoon or Road Karkoon is filled in by appointment on work charge establishment for a specific project. The persons are

-3appointed as Karkoon or Road Karkoon without adhering to the Recruitment Rules as applicable for regular posts. The nature of duties are different. The work conditions are not at par with persons who are working on regular establishment as Junior Clerk. 6] Apart from all the aforesaid, Government Resolution prescribing the pay scales and the grade pay itself, has not been challenged.

7] In light of the above, no case for interference is made out. Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

(MANGESH S. PATIL,J.) (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) umg/