MARUTI TUKARAM BAGAWE AND ORS. versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

Citation: [2020] 3 S.C.R. 1034 · Decided: 27-02-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1034
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
SHRI MARUTI TUKARAM BAGAWE AND ORS.
v.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 1759 of 2020)
FEBRUARY 27, 2020
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND MOHAN
M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.]
Service Law:
Service Career Development Scheme – Government Resolution
dated 8.6.1995 provided Group C and D employees pay-scale of
next promotional post after completion of 12 years of continuous
service – By Resolution dated 26.10.2004 accorded sanction to grant
pay-scale of ‘Deputy Accountant’ to the ‘Junior Clerks’ who had
passed Account Clerk examination and completed 12 years of
continuous Service – Senior clerks moved Administrative Tribunal
stating that the post of ‘Deputy Accountant’ being promotional post
for ‘Senior Clerk’ and not ‘Junior Clerk’, upgradation of pay-scale
of ‘Junior Clerk’ resulted in anamoly to ‘Senior Clerks’ – Tribunal
struck down the Resolution dated 26.10.2004 – Writ Petition was
filed by ‘Junior Clerks’ – During pendency of the writ, Government
by Resolution dated 11.9.2009 withdrew the Resolution dated
26.10.2004 – By letter dated 6.10.2009 Government stated that the
benefit under Resolution dated 26.10.2004 would continue subject
to undertaking by the beneficiaries that if High Court approved the
Resolution dated 11.9.2009, the government would recover the
benefits – Accordingly undertaking taken from the beneficiaries –
In the meantime ‘Junior Clerks’ challenged the Resolution dated
11.9.2009 – Writ Petition of the Senior Clerks was disposed of
directing that benefit given pursuant to letter dated 6.10.2009 not
to be withdrawn till the Administrative Tribunal decides the challenge
to Resolution dated 11.9.2009 – Administrative Tribunal by order
dated 4.12.2014 upheld the Resolution dated 11.9.2009 – In writ
petition against the order of Tribunal, High Court upheld the
Resolution dated 11.9.2009 – However, the Government directed
that recovery of excess amount as per undertaking would be of the
amount paid after 11.9.2009 and not prior thereto – Appeal to
1034
[2020] 3 S.C.R. 1034
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1035
Supreme Court – Held: State Government withdrew the Resolution
dated 26.10.2004 by its Resolution dated 11.9.2009 realizing that
the former Resolution created anomalous situation – Therefore
Tribunal rightly upheld the Resolution dated 11.9.2009 – Junior
Clerks were not entitled for the pay-scale of Deputy Accountant as
this was not the promotional post for the post of Junior Clerks –
The benefits received by the Junior clerks till 4.12.2014 (date of
order of Tribunal) were under the orders of High Court – Therefore,
the benefits received till 4.12.2014 not to be withdrawn.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. The Resolution of the Government dated
26.10.2004 providing for scale of Deputy Accountant to Junior
Clerks, who have passed the prescribed departmental
examination was withdrawn by subsequent Government
Resolution dated 11.09.2008. The Tribunal is right in its view
that the Government Resolution dated 26.10.2004 and 11.09.2008
were issued by the State Government in exercise of its executive
powers. Both the above Resolutions do not seek to alter the
service conditions of the appellants provided by Government
Resolution dated 08.06.1995. Government Resolution dated
26.10.2004 extended certain additional benefits to Finance
Department. The State Government later realised that such an
action will create an anomalous situation and which actually created
anomalous situation. Junior Clerks, who were lower to the Senior
Clerks were able to march in the next higher scale of the Senior
Clerks without coming in the scale of Senior Clerks and had
started drawing salary higher to the various Senior Clerks.
[Para 10][1041-F-H; 1042-A]
1.2 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. The
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal did not commit any error
in upholding the Government Resolution dated 11.09.2008. The
benefit, which was available to Junior Clerks of next higher grade
after completion of 12 years continuous service is still admissible.
Thus,the Tribunal did not commit any error in upholding the
Government Resolution dated 11.09.2008. [Paras 10 & 11][1042-
B-D]
SHRI MARUTI TUKARAM BAGAWE AND ORS. v. STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1036
SUPREME COURT RE
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.