Subhash Bhimrao Mahajan And Others v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

2024:BHC-AUG:26414-DB 1 wp 12009.24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 12009 OF 2024 Subhash Bhimrao Mahajan and others .. Petitioners

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Shri Lalitkumar S. Mahajan, Advocate for the Petitioners. Shri B. M. Dhanure, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5. CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.

DATE : 24 OCTOBER 2024.

FINAL ORDER :

.

In this petition, the identically placed petitioners have put forth prayer clauses (B), (C) and (D), which read as under : "[B] The Honorable court may kindly be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or appropriate writ, order, directions in the like nature, thereby directing the respondents, to grant the benefit of promotional scale/One-step pay scale (Ekstar) to the petitioners from the resp. the date of their postings in tribal area till the petitioners working in the Tribal/PESA, as per Government Resolution dated 06.08.2002 and Government Resolution dated 29.02.2024 and as per judgments of this Court, Furthermore the respondents may also be directed to pay arrears of salaries on the

2 wp 12009.24 basis of One-step pay scale till date.

C] The Honorable court may kindly be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or appropriate writ, order, directions in the like nature, thereby holding and declaring that the petitioners are entitled for One-step pay scale (Ekstar) till they are working in Tribal/PESA area, as per Government Resolution dated 06.08.2002 and Government Resolution dated 29.02.2024 and consequentially set aside Government Resolution dated 14.08.2008 to the extent of restricting and refusing the benefits of one step pay scale holding the same to be discriminatory and against the Government Resolution dated 08.08.2002 and Government Resolution dated 29.02.2024.

[D] Pending hearing and final disposal of this writ petition, kindly direct the respondents to pay salaries of petitioners as per one step pay scale as per Government Resolution dated 06.08.02 & 29.02.24." 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.

We do not find any such circumstances, which would convince us to take a different view.

3 wp 12009.24 4.

The learned advocates representing the respective parties clearly state that the order passed by this Court at the Principal Seat in Writ Petition No. 8824of 2021 dated 12/12/2021, is applicable to petitioners.

5.

In view of the above, this Writ Petition is allowed in the following terms :

(i) The impugned action of stoppage of One-step pay scale initiated by the respondents is quashed and set aside. (ii) The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Dhule - respondent No. 5 shall scrutinize the records of all these petitioners and the places, at which they are deployed for performing their duties, within a period of eight weeks. (iii) Those cases, which do not suffer from any legal impediment after verification, shall be cleared by respondent No. 5 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. 5, would issue notices to each of such petitioners, so as to

4 wp 12009.24 enable them to appear and address him.

(v) After such hearing, which shall be completed within four months from today, respondent No. 5 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.] bsb/Oct. 24