J A PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 30th June 1980 on which date he was holding the post of Director of Seeds Certification in the State of Maharashtra. The post was a ClassI post with a pay scale of Rs.11001700 at the time when the Petitioner superannuated. After the reports of the Fourth and Fifth Pay Commissions, the pay scale of the Petitioner, for the purposes of computing pensionary benefits was converted into the following equivalent pay scales namely:

(2.) The Tribunal rejected the contention of the Petitioner by its order that is impugned in these proceedings. The Tribunal held that in the present case the original post of Director of Seeds Certification was in the cadre of Superintending Agriculture Officer and on the date on which the Petitioner retired, that was the post which he held. The Government Resolution dated 31st March 1995 showed that the entire organization of Seeds Certification was restructured. 319 posts were required to be reduced. One post in the status of Additional Director of Agriculture, 7 posts in the Maharashtra Agricultural Service ClassI and 31 posts of Agricultural Assistants were to be newly created. The preamble to the GR mentions that there were 685 sanctioned posts in the Maharashtra Seeds Certification Organization of which 381 were technical posts and 304 were other posts. Those employees were on deputation from the Agriculture Department. A Committee was established by the State Government for recommending measures to make the Seeds Certification Organization financially selfsufficient and in pursuance of the recommendations of the Committee, a proposal for reorganization and restructuring was under consideration of the Government. Government thereupon took a decision to reduce the number of employees and to restructure the Department. In that context the post of Director of Seeds Certification which hitherto was equivalent to a Superintending Agriculture Officer (the position as it obtained on the date of retirement of the Petitioner) was restructured so as to be equivalent to the status of an Additional Director of Agriculture in the higher pay scale. The Tribunal, while interpreting this GR held that even if the nomenclature of the post continued to be that of Director of Seeds Certification, Government had as an administrative measure, restructured the organization by creating a new post of the status of Additional Director of Agriculture. The post of Superintending Agriculture Officer which was equivalent to the post held by the Petitioner and the post of Additional Director of Agriculture were not on par. In these circumstances, the Tribunal held that the post held by the Petitioner and by a person after 31st March 1995 was not the same or of the same status. The application was thereupon dismissed.

(3.) On behalf of the Petitioner, reliance is placed on the Government Resolution dated 15th November 1999 by which the pensionary benefits of all the pre 1986 pensioners and normal pensioners were revised with effect from 1st January 1996 upon the implementation of the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission. The Government Resolution in so far as is material provides as follows :