Namdev Asaram Gaikwad And Others v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

2024:BHC-AUG:23927-DB - 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 909 WRIT PETITION NO. 10869 OF 2024 NAMDEV ASARAM GAIKWAD AND OTHERS

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS Mr.S.K.Mathpati, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr.P.D.Suryawanshi, Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos. 5 and 6. Mr.M.M.Nerlikar, AGP for the Respondent/State. ( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND Y.G.KHOBRAGADE, JJ.) DATE : OCTOBER 3, 2024 PER COURT :

1.

All these Petitioners claim to have received their District Awards prior to 12.12.2000. The details read as under :- Chart in respect of details of Petitioners' name, date of appointment, date of retirement and date of District Award :- Sr.

No.

Name of the Petitioners Date of Appointment Date of Retirement Date of District Award

01. Namdev s/o Asaram Gaikwad 16.11.1973 30.06.2011 1997-1998

02. Neela Dattatray Tarakh 05.04.1979 31.12.2016 1995-1996

03. Minaxi Sudhakarrao Rakhe 11.12.1973 30.11.2004 1998-1999

- 2 -

04. Jagannath s/o Vikram Ghuge 30.06.1971 31.03.2007 1994-1995

05. Shrikrishana s/o Babasaheb Tarakh 11.01.1974 31.08.2011 1994-1995 2.

In this Petition, the Petitioners are identically placed. All of them received the District Teachers Award prior to 12.12.2000. In several matters, this Court has concluded that "the Respondent Zilla Parishad, after confirming itself of the Petitioner being a District Awardee Teacher prior to 04.09.2018, prior to his retirement, shall consider the case of the Petitioner for additional increment as laid down in the circular dated 12.12.2000. It is made clear that the Petitioner will not be entitled for actual monetary benefits till the date of his retirement. The additional increment shall be counted notionally. The benefit shall be given to the Petitioner for pension purpose." (WP Nos. 12519/2019 and 9414/2021]. The learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners are satisfied if the above order is made applicable to their cases.

3.

The learned Advocate for the Zilla Parishad has vehemently opposed this Petition on the ground of delay and laches and submits that this Petition does not deserve to be considered. In the alternative,

- 3 - he submits that the Petitioners may be deprived of the monetory benefits.

4.

In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed off by adopting the above reproduced order. Consequentially, the impugned order is set aside to the extent of the Petitioners. The Zilla Parishad shall act accordingly.

( Y.G.KHOBRAGADE, J. ) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)