ASHOK ATMARAM DUDHANI Vs. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) The petitioner is before this Court with a prayer to the respondent no.1 - Director of Municipal Administration to grant approval for giving pay scale of Rs.1640-60-2600-EB-75-2900 to the petitioner as Junior Engineer in the service of respondent no.4 - Achalpur Municipal Council, Achalpur as per proposal submitted by the respondent no.4- Achalpur Municipal Council.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner by inviting our attention to the documents placed on record submitted that the petitioner was possessing a diploma in civil engineering. In view of the academic qualification of the petitioner, the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Engineer in the establishment of the respondent no.4 - Achalpur Municipal Council. The learned Counsel invited our attention to the copy of Resolution passed by the Municipal Council in the meeting dated 11/2/1988. She submitted that the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Engineer on the pay scale of Rs.395-15-500-20-700-25-900. She fairly submitted that though initially the appointment was temporary subsequently by way of post facto sanction, the petitioner's appointment was made permanent. Learned Counsel invited our attention to the communication/order placed on record at Annexure - II. She submitted that by way of Resolution dated 11/2/1988, the Municipal Council held that the petitioner was entitled for the benefits as of a Municipal employee and was subjected to the Rules and provisions which are applicable to the Municipal Council employees. It was the submission of the learned Counsel that a demand was raised before the State Government to place the Junior Engineers of Municipal Council at par with the Junior Engineers working in the State Government Department and consequently grant of similar benefits such as of pay revision in view of the 4th Pay Commission. By inviting our attention to the Resolution dated 23/7/1996 the learned Counsel submitted that the Municipal Council was also favourable for grant of the revised pay scale to the Junior Engineers working with Municipal Council and treating them at par with the Junior Engineers with State Government. Learned Counsel then submitted that the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council, Achalpur forwarded the proposal to the Director of Municipal Administration for grant of sanction with his favourable opinion to the proposal. She submitted that even the District Collector of Amravati found that the proposal of the Municipal Council was just and proper and he also recommended the proposal. The said communication dated 27/2/1997 is on record at Annexure - IX. The learned Counsel then submitted that the Deputy Director of the Municipal Administration by way of communication dated 4/9/1991 sought for certain information along with query in view of the proposal received for grant of the pay scale. The learned Counsel then invited our attention to the communication dated 15/11/1997 forwarded by the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council along with the statement. Learned Counsel vehemently submitted that the statement submitted by the Chief Officer clearly shows that the percentage of expenditure on establishment of the Achalpur Municipal Council was less than 42%. It was 39.77% for the year 1994-95, 36.67% for the year 1995-96 and 36.59% for the year 1996-97. It was the submission of the learned Counsel that for all these three years the expenditure on establishment was less than 42%. It was the submission of the learned Counsel that this data shows that the respondent - Municipal Council, Achalpur was having a viable financial position to bear burden of wage rise to the petitioner and other similarly situated employees. Learned Counsel submitted that though the petition was pending before this Court for a considerable long period no replies were filed by the respondents and by order dated 16/5/2016 this Court while considering the claim raised by the petitioner and considering the fact that there was a favourable recommendation of the Municipal Council and the office of Collector directed the respondent nos.1 and 2 to consider the proposal within a stipulated period and the matter was then posted on the next date for further consideration. Learned Counsel then submitted that in the mean time Writ Petition No.3107/1999 filed by another employee of the Municipal Council who is similarly situated with the present petitioner is decided by this Court by way of judgment and order dated 27/8/2015. She submitted that the facts are identical in both these petitions. She then submitted that the ground of opposition of the respondents and more particularly the State Government which was of a cascading effect by way of financial burden on the Government is also considered by the Division Bench of this Court. She then submitted that the Division Bench of this Court was of a clear view that when the proposal was submitted by the Municipal Council with its positive recommendations and also by the District Collector with his positive recommendations it was only the failure or omission on the part of Urban Development Department which kept the proposal pending for years together and for the fault of the agency of the concerned Department, the petitioner may not be subjected to depriving his rightful claim.