SUNITA ARVIND PENDHARKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After the matter was closed on 19th June 2006, on 20th June 2006, the learned Senior Advocate with Shri Hedaoo, Advocate appeared and made a request to grant him further hearing in the matter. He was accompanied by Shri Dhote, learned AGP, who gave his no objection. Accordingly, both the advocates were heard on 20th June 2006 and the matter was closed for judgment.

(2.) By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner, deceased and retired District and Sessions Judge has claimed a relief of re-fixation of his basic pay with effect from the date on which he was promoted to the cadre of District Judge and all subsequent dates on which his juniors were so promoted with all consequential reliefs. During the pendency of petition, by Government Resolution dated 25.7.1991, he has been given part of relief from some later dates. The grievance made is that said relief should be granted from earlier dates and he should also be paid interest on belated payment as per this Government Resolution and also on amount of difference in case the relief is given from earlier dates. The original petitioner has expired and petition is being prosecuted by his widow, son and daughters.

(3.) The petitioner entered the service as Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class on 1.12.1958 and on 14.8.1978 he was promoted as District and Sessions Judge at Beed in the Pay-Scale of Rs.1750-75-2000-125/2-2250. The petitioner was thereafter taken up as Member of Industrial Court at Nagpur on 14.6.1980 and he retired upon reaching the age of superannuation on 31.10.1986 in the afternoon. The case of the petitioner is that upon promotion as District Judge, his juniors like Shri Somalwar, Shri Gawande, Shri Patwardhan and Shri S.S.H. Qazi were given more salary than him because of their fixation as such and hence in view of Instruction No.2 to Rule 11 of Maharashtra Civil Services (Pay) Rules 1981, he is also entitled to have his pay stepped up to a figure equal to the pay of his juniors to the post of District Judge. Relying upon this instruction, the petitioner has contended that on 14.8.1978 his pay was fixed at Rs.1925/- in the scale mentioned above and in fact on 30.9.1983. the State Government had directed the Accountant General- II, Maharashtra, Nagpur, to fix his pay at Rs.2000/- with effect from 14.8.1978 and fix pay of his junior Shri S.S.H. Qazi on promotion at Rs.2250/- with effect from 17.7.1980. It is his contention that his junior Shri Qazi was given benefit of this letter and he was fixed at Rs.2250/- with effect from 17.7.1980 while the letter was not implemented in his case and it constituted discrimination and also violation of above referred Instruction No.2. He addressed two letters i.e. dated 14.10.1983 and 21.2.1984 for implementing these letters but his request was not even looked into.