RAMESH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

(2.) Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

(3.) In terms of the Circular dtd. 12/12/2000, issued by the State of Maharashtra, the petitioner a District Awardee Teacher, was conferred with, one increment on 5/9/2007 as an incentive, for his good performance. Whereafter, upon making 6th Pay Commission Recommendations, applicable, the benefit of increment was discontinued. The State justified the discontinuation, by relying on the Government Resolution dtd. 24/08/2017. The purport of said Government Resolution was examined by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.625/2016, at the instance of one of the District Awardees Teacher. The Division Bench held and concluded that the said Government Resolution ipso facto does not suggest withdrawal of the benefit conferred on the District Awardee Teacher, in terms of the Circular dtd. 12/12/2000. In the fact situation, the State was directed to restore the benefits to the petitioner therein. Yet, in batch of petitions, Writ Petition Nos.5419/2018, 2033/2018, 5420/2018, 5421/2018, 5858/2018, 5859/2018 and 6474/2018, similar issue was addressed wherein State justified the withdrawal of the benefit, in terms of the Government Resolution dtd. 04/09/2018. The State sought to contend that in terms of said Government Resolution Clause No.12 of the Circular dtd. 12/12/2000, by which additional increment was conferred since has been withdrawn, the petitioners therein were not entitled to seek restoration of one increment as incentive. The Division Bench, took a view that Government Resolution dtd. 04/09/2018 does not have retrospective effect nor could have given any retrospective effect and withdrawn benefit conferred on Awardees. The reliance was placed on the Judgment dtd. 25/01/2019 in Writ Petition No.1954/2018 passed by the Bench at Aurangabad. As such, concluded, that the Government Resolution dtd. 04/09/2018 cannot be interpreted to be issued with any retrospective effect. In Paragraph No.04, the Division Bench has held thus :-