Writ Petition No. 11700 of 2015. Case: Bhaskar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition No. 11700 of 2015 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: G.L. Deshpande, Adv. and For Respondents: D.R. Kale, AGP |
| Judges | S. S. Shinde and P. R. Bora, JJ. |
| Issue | Civil Procedure Code |
| Judgement Date | March 02, 2016 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
P. R. Bora, J.
-
Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing.
-
Following two issues are raised in the present petition:
(1) Whether the recommendations of Justice Shetty Commission would be applicable to the post of Assistant Superintendent, Civil Court, Senior Division.
(2) Whether the benefits as made available by Justice Shetty Commission can be extended to the employees working in the Office of the District Legal Services Authority.
-
Before adverting to the legal issues raised as above, it would be necessary to note down in brief the facts of the present petition, which are thus:
The petitioner entered into the services of the State on 15th July, 1980. He was appointed as Junior Clerk on the establishment of the District Court, Beed. In the year 1989, he was promoted to the post of Senior Clerk. After having completed 12 years of the service in the cadre of Senior Clerk, petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Superintendent, Civil Court, Senior Division, Beed, vide Office order dated 25th January, 2001, issued under the signature of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Beed. In the year 2005, the petitioner was transferred from the post of Assistant Superintendent, Civil Court, Senior Division, Beed, to the post of Assistant Superintendent, Civil Court, Junior Division, Patoda. In the year 2009, he was promoted and transferred to the post of Superintendent, Civil Court, Senior Division, Majalgaon. In the year 2010, petitioner was transferred from the post of Superintendent, Civil Court, Senior Division, Majalgaon, to Superintendent, District Legal Services Authority, at Beed. On 30th April, 2013, petitioner retired from the said post on attaining the age of superannuation. After his retirement, the pay of the petitioner was fixed by considering the recommendations of the Shetty Commission vide office order No. 428/2012. Thereafter, the pay verification was done by respondent no.2. In the pay verification, respondent no.2 raised an objection that the petitioner was working as Assistant Superintendent, Civil Court, Senior Division, Beed, on 1.4.2003, and as such, was not entitled to the pay and increments as recommended by the Shetty Commission since the recommendations of the Shetty Commission were applicable only to the post of Assistant Superintendent, Civil Court, Junior Division, and not to the post of Assistant Superintendent, Civil Court, Senior Division. According to respondent no.2, the aforesaid objection was raised based on clause (4) of the Government circular dated 8th of March, 2013.
One more objection was raised by respondent no.2 that the benefits of the recommendations made by Justice Shetty Commission would not be applicable to the petitioner since he was working on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial