This case delves into the detailed legal analysis by the courts regarding pay scale anomalies arising from conflicting government resolutions. The courts scrutinized the validity of various resolutions and their impact on employee entitlements, highlighting the importance of legal clarity in administrative decisions. Stay tuned to uncover the complexities of this significant legal dispute.
Facts
- Employees in group C and D were granted the pay scale of the next promotional post after 12 years of continuous service.
- An undertaking was taken from employees regarding the recovery of benefits in case the High Court approves a resolution from 2008.
- A writ petition partially allowed by the High Court regarding the pay scale discrepancies for different posts.
- An Original Application filed in Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal questioning a Government Resolution from 2008.
- Implementation of Service Career Development Scheme for State Government Employees.
- Granting of pay scale of Deputy Accountant instead of Senior Clerk to Treasury/Sub-Treasury Clerks who passed the Maharashtra Account Clerk examination and completed 12 years of service.
- An appeal filed against a High Court judgment in 2018 regarding a writ petition challenging a Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal order from 2014.
- Disputes regarding pay scale anomalies for Senior Clerk and Junior Clerk positions.
- The High Court disposed of the writ petition directing that any benefits already given to the petitioners should not be withdrawn until the Original Application filed by the petitioners is decided by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal.
- An interim order was passed by the High Court to stay the Tribunal’s order during the pendency of the writ petition.
- The Government of Maharashtra, through a resolution dated 11.09.2008, withdrew the resolution dated 26.10.2004.
- The final order of the High Court stated that benefits given to the petitioner should not be withdrawn until the original application is decided by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal.
- The High Court’s judgment of 05.12.2009 did not rule on the validity of the Government Resolution dated 11.09.2008.
- The Tribunal, in its judgment dated 17.11.2006, invalidated the Government resolution of 26.10.2004.
Also Read: Interpretation of Lease Agreement and Compulsory Registration
Issue
- The Government Resolution dated 24.10.2004, providing for the scale of Deputy Accountant to Junior Clerks who passed the prescribed departmental examination, was withdrawn by the subsequent Government Resolution dated 11.09.2008.
- The administrative tribunal upheld the withdrawal of the Government Resolution dated 24.10.2004 by the Government Resolution dated 11.09.2008.
- The points arising for consideration in this appeal include: (i) Whether the appellants were entitled to the pay-scale of Deputy Accountant by virtue of the Government Resolution dated 08.06.1995 despite the withdrawal of the Resolution dated 24.10.2004 (ii) Whether the administrative tribunal erred in upholding the withdrawal of the Resolution dated 24.10.2004 by the Resolution dated 11.09.2008 (iii) Whether the appellants were right in their claim that amounts received by them until 04.12.2014, when the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal rejected their claim, could not have been recovered and any recoveries, if necessary, could only be made for the period subsequent to that date.
Also Read: Enhancing Compensation and Modifying Sentences: A Legal Analysis
Arguments
- The appellant argues that they were correctly granted the benefits of the Deputy Accountant pay scale under a Resolution dated 24.10.2004, which should not have been withdrawn by a subsequent Government Resolution dated 11.09.2008.
- The appellant asserts that no recovery can be made from them for any period before 04.12.2014, when the Tribunal rejected their Original Application.
- Even if the Resolution dated 24.10.2004 is withdrawn, the appellant claims their right to receive the Deputy Accountant salary after completing 12 years of service cannot be affected.
- The appellant contends that their entitlement to the Deputy Accountant scale after 12 years of continuous service is supported by Government Resolutions dated 01.02.1965 and 08.06.1995.
- The benefits granted to the appellants were in pursuance of Government Resolution dated 24.10.2004.
- These benefits were withdrawn by the Government Resolution dated 11.09.2008.
- The appellants received benefits based on an undertaking to refund the amount if the Government Resolution dated 11.09.2008 is approved by the High Court.
- Some appellants were allowed to retain legal benefits received from 24.10.1994 until 11.09.2008.
Also Read: Exemption from Property Tax for Central Government-owned Buildings
Analysis
- Junior Clerks were able to march into the next higher scale without actually coming in the scale of Senior Clerks, causing an anomalous situation.
- The Tribunal set aside the Resolution dated 26.10.2004, which was later set aside by the High Court.
- The appellants challenged the Tribunal’s order in a Writ Petition No.946 of 2007.
- Appellants were required to refund the excess payments received due to the Government Resolution dated 06.10.2009.
- The Resolution dated 08.06.1995 provided for the grant of the next promotional post pay-scale after 12 years of continuous service.
- The appellants were not entitled to the pay-scale of Deputy Accountant despite the withdrawal of the Resolution dated 26.10.2004.
- The High Court permitted the appellants to retain benefits until the original application was decided.
- The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal upheld the Resolution dated 11.09.2008, leading to the appellants being required to refund the excess amount received.
- The service conditions of the employees are governed by the State Government, with Junior Clerks being eligible for promotion after passing an examination.
- Government Resolutions dated 26.10.2004 and 08.06.1995 did not seek to alter the service conditions of the appellants.
- Appointment to the post of Senior Clerk can be done through promotion of existing clerks in District Treasuries or through nomination of candidates meeting specific criteria.
- Candidates eligible for nomination must be under 25 years of age and hold a degree from a recognized university in Art, Science, Commerce, or Law.
- The benefit received by the appellants till 04.12.2014 should not be withdrawn.
- Since the Resolution dated 26.10.2004 has been withdrawn by the Government, the Original application no.936 of 2005 filed by the petitioners has become infructuous.
- The direction of the High Court in paragraph 16(B) should be modified to substitute the date 11.09.2008 with the date 04.12.2014 for serving the ends of justice.
Decision
- The order of the Tribunal dated 17.11.2006 was stayed by the High Court by interim order dated 13.02.2007, leading to the passing of Resolution dated 11.09.2008.
- A Government Resolution dated 06.10.2009 provided for giving benefits to related employees and retired employees subject to the final judgment of the High Court.
- The Writ Petition No 946 of 2007 was decided by the High Court on 05.12.2009, with certain benefits extended to the petitioners as per the decision in a letter dated 6.10.2009.
- The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal was directed by the High Court to consider the fresh Original Application filed by the petitioners in accordance with the law.
- If any benefits were already given to the petitioners as per the decision in the letter dated 6.10.2009, they were directed not to be withdrawn.
- An undertaking was affirmed for refunding the entire amount payable to the Government if the High Court upheld the Government Resolution dated 11.09.2008.
- The direction in the judgment and order for recovery of excess payments was modified, allowing the recovery from 04 December, 2014, and restraining recovery or benefits secured by the petitioners prior to that date.
Case Title: SHRI MARUTI TUKARAM BAGAWE Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (2020 INSC 229)
Case Number: C.A. No.-001759-001759 / 2020
