The respondents herein thereafter filed Original Application in Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal questioning the Government Resolution dated 11.09.2008.
During pendency of the Writ Petition No.946 of 2007, the Government Resolution dated 11.09.2008 was passed.
In pursuance of the aforesaid resolution, the respondents herein were granted the pay scale of Deputy Accountant from different date beginning from 01.10.1994.
All companycerned to act on basis of authenticated companyy 666666666 of this order.
The writ petition came to be decided by the judgment dated 18.06.2018.
The appellants were number entitled to any benefits and benefits received thereafter were on the basis of undertaking given by the appellant that they shall refund the amount in case the Government Resolution dated 11.09.2008 is approved by the High Court.
The State Government letter realise that such an action will create an anomalous situation and which actually created anomalous situation.
By Government resolution dated 20.07.2001, the State Government decided to implement under Service Career Development Scheme to State Government Employees.
The effect of the judgment would be that numberrecovery can be made for any amount received by the appellant for the period prior to 04.12.2014.
They claimed that they should also be granted the higher pay so that the anomaly be set right.
The writ petition was partly allowed by the High Court in following manner For all the aforesaid reasons, we partly allow this petition and dispose it of with the following order The impugned judgment and order to the extent it upholds the GR dated 11th September 2008 is upheld However, the direction in the impugned judgment and order for recovery of the excess payments is modified.
After the aforesaid order dated 06.10.2009, an undertaking was taken from the respondent and they were companytinued the benefit which was received by them under Government resolution dated 06.10.2014.
Brief facts of the case to be numbericed for Signature Not Verified deciding this appeal are Digitally signed by MEENAKSHI KOHLI Date 2020.02.27 152247 IST Reason 2.1.
By Government resolution dated 08.06.1995, it was provided that employees holding posts in group C and D previously Class III and Class IV shall be given the pay scale of next promotional post in the promotional hierarchy after companypleting 12 years of companytinuous service.
This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment of the High Court.
Both the above Resolutions do number seek to alter the service companyditions of the appellants provided by Government Resolution dated 08.06.1995.
The Tribunal vide its judgment and order dated 17.11.2006 struck down the Government resolution dated 26.10.2004.
The High Court passed an interim order for staying the order of Tribunal.
All the respondents herein were working as a Junior Clerk in District Treasury at District level who received benefits under Government resolution dated 26.10.2004.
Shri Kunal Cheema, learned companynsel appearing for the respondent, refuting the submissions of the appellant companytends that the benefits which were granted to appellants in pursuance of Government Resolution dated 24.10.2004 having been withdrawn by the Government Resolution dated 11.09.2008.
Junior Clerks, who were lower to the Senior Clerks were able to march in the next higher scale of the Senior Clerks without being companying in the scale of Senior Clerks and had started drawing salary higher to the various Senior Clerks due to which Senior Clerks had filed Original Application in the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, which was allowed setting aside the order dated 26.10.2004, which was subsequently set aside by the High Court.
By a subsequent resolution dated 26.10.2004 issued by the Government of Maharashtra, Sanction was accorded to grant the pay scale of Deputy Accountant instead of Senior Clerk to the Treasury Sub Treasury Clerks under the companytrol of Directorate of Accounts and Treasuries, who had passed Maharashtra Account Clerk examination and companypleted 12 years of companytinuous service.
The service included different categories of posts including Class 3 posts.
Original Application filed by the appellant was ultimately decided on 04.12.2014 by which it was rejected.
The Respondents shall accordingly be at liberty to recover excess payments made to the petitioners after 11th September 2008, by way of monthly instalments but the respondents are restrained from effecting recovery or benefits secured by the petitioners prior to th 11 September 2008 Rule is made partly absolute in the aforesaid terms.
W.P. No.
946 of 2007 came for companysideration on 05.12.2009.
From the submissions made by the learned companynsel for the parties and material on record, following points arise for companysideration in this appeal Whether Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal erred in upholding the Government Resolution dated 11.09.2008 by which earlier Government Resolution dated 24.10.2004 was withdrawn?
The Government thereafter issued a letter dated 06.10.2009 in companytinuation of resolution dated 11.09.2008 stating that there is numberobjection to give benefit in companynection with service to all related employees and retired employees which benefit shall be given subject to final judgment of the High Court by taking undertaking from the employees that in event the High Court approved the resolution dated 11.09.2008, the employees shall have numberobjection in recovery of financial benefits payable to the employees from his retirement salary.
The appellant themselves have filed Annexure P 2 as the statement showing service particulars of appellants, which indicate that the pay scale of Deputy Accountant was granted to the appellants on the basis of Government Resolution dated 26.10.2004.
The undertaking which was given by the appellants and other employees was to the effect that if the High Court upheld the Government Resolution dated 11.09.2008, they shall refund the amount received.
During the pendency of writ petition, the Government of Maharashtra vide its resolution dated 11.09.2008 withdrew the resolution dated 26.10.2004.
Thus, the benefits, which were received by the appellants till 04.12.2014 were under the order of the High Court dated 05.12.2009.
An Original Application No.
Aggrieved by the order dated 04.12.2014, writ petition No.1765 of 2015 was filed by respondent in the High Court.
Government Resolution dated 26.10.2004 extended certain additional benefits to Finance Department.
In the District Treasury, there were posts of Senior Clerk as well as Junior Clerk.
Against the judgment of the Tribunal dated 17.11.2006, the writ petition No.946 of 2007 was filed in the High Court.
The applicants were working as Senior Clerks Deputy Accountant, who were directly appointed on the post of Senior Clerk through Staff Selection Board and on passing the prescribed Departmental Accountant examination, they were companyfirmed as Senior Clerk.
A Writ Petition No.946 of 2007 was filed by the appellants challenging the order of the Tribunal.
The Government of Maharashtra, Finance Department by resolution dated 01.02.1965 decided to companystitute Maharashtra Finance and Accounts Service under the administrative companytrol of the Finance Department.
There shall be numberorder as to companyts.
Referring to the Government Resolution dated 01.02.1965 and 08.06.1995, learned companynsel companytends that the appellants were entitled for scale of Deputy Accountant after companypletion of 12 years of companytinuous service.
By order dated 04.12.2014 the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal upheld the Resolution dated 11.09.2008, thus, the companyrectness of Resolution dated 11.09.2008 was upheld only on 04.12.2014.
The recruitment and promotion of the Junior Clerks, Senior Clerks, in District Treasury were governed by the executive instructions, which can be modified, altered in the same manner in which it was provided by the State Government.
By resolution dated 28.12.1970 Procedure for recruitment to the post of Senior Clerk was provided for, which also companytained one of the modes of appointment on the post of Senior Clerk by promotion of clerks, borne on the establishment of District Treasury.
He submits that even if Resolution dated 24.10.2004 is withdrawn by the State Government, their right to receive the salary of Deputy Accountant after companypletion of 12 years of service cannot be affected which flows from Resolution dated 08.06.1995.
936 of 2005 was filed in the Maharashtra State Administrative Tribunal, Shri Vijay A. Dangat Others Versus The State of Maharashtra and others.
Whether despite withdrawal of the Government Resolution dated 24.10.2004, the appellants were entitled to the pay scale of Deputy Accountant by virtue of Government Resolution dated 08.06.1995?
Shri Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, learned companynsel for the appellant submits that the appellants were companyrectly granted the benefits of pay scale of Deputy Accountant under Resolution dated 24.10.2004 which ought number to have been withdrawn by subsequent Government Resolution dated 11.09.2008.
The case of Senior Clerk was that the scale of pay number granted to Junior Clerk for the post of Deputy Accountant is number the promotional post for Junior Clerk but is the promotional post for the Senior Clerk as per Rule.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition directing that if any benefits are already given to the petitioners respondents herein , pursuant to the decision companytained in letter dated 06.10.2009, they shall number be withdrawn till the Original Application filed by the petitioners respondents herein is decided by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal.
The Original Application No.161 of 2009 and other companynected Original Applications questioning the subsequent Government resolution dated 11.09.2008 came to be dismissed by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal by order dated 04.12.2014.
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of High Court of Bombay dated 18.06.2018 by which writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 04.12.2014 of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has been partly allowed.
It is submitted that under the judgment of the High Court dated 05.12.2009, the benefits which were given to the appellants under Resolution dated 24.10.2004 were number to be withdrawn till the Original Application was decided by the Tribunal.
