Sanjay Vishwanath Rane And Others78 v. The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD 972 WRIT PETITION NO.8329 OF 2023
1) Sanjay Vishwanath Rane
2) Sharad Santosh Dasnur
3) Dadaji Sudam Narwade
4) Archana Nandkishore Mahale
5) Chaya Adhar Ghanwat
6) Sharad Pundalik Shivde
7) Ratnakar Bhika Masule
8) Ramsing Vijaysing Thoke
9) Govind Bhausaheb Desale
10) Pradeep Dattatraya Borse
11) Sandeepsingh Ramesh Pawar
12) Walmik Devidas Halwar
13) Sagar Bhimrao Deshmukh
14) Rahul Jagannath Nandre
15) Nita Keshavsing Mahale
16) Vijay Walmik Karhe
17) Bharti Kadu Aher
18) Pradeep Walu Kale
19) Sandeep Subhas Ghuge
20) Pratibha Sarang Mahale
21) Vaishali Sitaram Bhoye
22) Dipakkumar Laxman Patil
23) Himmat Mahadeo Raut
24) Manjusha Yeshwant Pagar
25) Tatya Baban Ahere
26) Sadhana Sachin Jadhav
27) Vishnu Shankar Lahare
28) Dnyaneshwar Rajaram Velis
29) Dinkar Namdeo Pawar
30) Asha Gorakh Chavan
31) Gopal Narayan Raut
32) Rambhau Baburao Nikam
33) Walchand Raghunath Valgade
34) Jijabai Pandu Pakhane
35) Megha Shankar Mahale
36) Dinesh Sheshrao Pawar
37) Pushpa Chaudhari
38) Pandharinath Vitthal Chaudhari
39) Dadaji Baburao Pawar
40) Subhas Ramchandra Khambait 1/5
41) Dnyaneshwar Shriram Chavan
42) Kashiram Dhawalu Pawar
43) Parashram Rajaram Wadekar
44) Balu Kashiram Dhum
45) Hiraman Gangaram Wadu
46) Ratan Ramdas Gavit
47) Balu Jairam Wadekar
48) Dhanraj Narayan Chaudhari
49) Hanumant Deoram Khavale
50) Hiraman Dada Gavit
51) Kashinath Madhu Mahale
52) Prakash Soma Gavit
53) Ishwarlal Ramlal Nerkar
54) Laxman Vishram Ahire
55) Kautik Govinda Savkar
56) Jaishree Shankar Chaudhari
57) Mahesh Shriram Gurav
58) Ravindra Uttam Hujare
59) Sakharam Mahadu Thakare
60) Manisha Madhavrao Pawar
61) Nivarutti Ananda Nikam
62) Lalita Vikram Bachhav
63) Sharad Kautik Pawar
64) Bhausaheb Keda Jadhav
65) Sitaram Mahadu Nikam
66) Yunus Gulab Shaikh
67) Lalchand Pawba Sable
68) Ratnakar Gavit,
69) Pradhan Bajirao Daure
70) Vijaya Guljarilal Jople
71) Rambhau Vishwanath Bagul
72) Shrikant Nanaji Devare
73) Jayesh Shyamlal Rohidas
74) Sahebrao Dhawalu Borse
75) Subhash Narayan Dongre
76) Eknath Amrut Bendkoli
77) Shobhabai Vishwnath Pawar
78) Sanjay Ramesh Patil
79) Nandlal Tulshiram Shinde ... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary, General Administration Department , 2/5
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Secretary, Tribal Development Department , Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
3. The Tribal Commissioner, Tribal Development Nashik, Dist: Nashik
4. The Additional Tribal Commissioner, Tribal Development Nashik, Div. Nashik ...RESPONDENTS ...
Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. Shinde Balaji S. A.G.P. for the Respondents/State : Mr. A.S. Shinde
CORAM
: MANGESH S. PATIL & SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.
DATE : 14.07.2023 PER COURT :
In this petition, the identically placed petitioners have put forth prayer clauses (B), (C) & (D), which read as under :- "B) This Honorable court, by issuing appropriate writ, order or directions, in the like nature, direct the respondent No. 4 to regrant and continue to pay one step pay scale (Ekstar) to the petitioners, though petitioners entitled for time bound promotion till petitioners works in Tribal/PESA area, as per G.R. dated 06.08.2002 and as per honorable High Court judgment dated 14.07.2021 in W.P. St.No. 9543/2021.
C)This Honorable Court, by issuing appropriate writ, order or directions, in the like nature, kindly quash and set aside, impugned action of respondents thereby directing to withdraw one step pay scale and recovery of alleged excess 3/5
salary amount paid to the petitioners, as per orders annexed at Exh-D in view of the judgment of the honorable Apex Court in case of the State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafique Masia (white washer) and others reported in 2015(4) SCC 334, as petitioners are class-3 employee. D)This Honourable Court, by issuing appropriate writ, direct the respondents to fix the pay scale, as per Para-6 of G.R. dated 14.05.2019 and directed to be paid the salaries petitioners as per one step pay scale or pay scale which is more benefited to the petitioners and also directed to made available the option to apply the time bound promotion scale at appropriate time as per GR dated 14.05.2019." 2.
We have considered the submissions of the learned advocates for the respective sides and have perused the series of orders passed by this Court in favour of similarly situated petitioners, which have been annexed to the petition.
3.
In view of the above, we do not find any such circumstances, which would convince us to take a different view.
4.
The learned advocates representing the respective parties have clearly stated that the order passed by this Court at the Principal Seat, in Writ Petition No.8824/2021, dated 21/12/2021, is applicable to this case. 5.
In view of the above, the Writ Petition is allowed in following terms :- (i) The impugned action of recovery initiated by the respondents is quashed and set aside.
(ii) The Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development Department, Nashik - respondent No.4, shall scrutinize the records of all these petitioners and the places, at which 4/5
they are deployed for performing their duties, within a period of 21 days.
(iii) Those cases, which do not suffer from any legal impediment after verification, shall be cleared by respondent No.4 and the salary benefits, to which they are entitled to, in the light of the one-step pay-scale made available to the employees working in the tribal and PESA areas, shall be paid, along with their arrears, as well as their current salaries, within a period of four weeks thereafter.
(iv) After scrutiny, if any of these petitioners, on the basis of their records, are found to be ineligible, respondent No.4, would issue notices to each of such petitioners, so as to enable them to appear before him and address. (v) After such hearing, which shall be completed within four months from today, respondent No.4 shall pass appropriate orders and grant benefits of one-step pay-scale to those candidates, who are found to be eligible. (vi) Those petitioners, who suffer adverse orders after the above stated exercise is completed, would be at liberty to avail of a statutory remedy, as is permissible in law. ( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) mkd/- 5/5