Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ramesh S/o Hirachand Nandurkar, a District Awardee Teacher employed with the Zilla Parishad, Amravati, was granted one additional increment as an incentive on 5th September 2007 under a Circular dated 12/12/2000 issued by the State of Maharashtra. This incentive was conferred for his good performance. However, after the implementation of the 6th Pay Commission Recommendations, the benefit of this increment was discontinued by the State. The State justified the discontinuation by relying on a Government Resolution dated 24/08/2017. The petitioner challenged this discontinuation by filing a Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. The Court noted that the purport of the Government Resolution dated 24/08/2017 had already been examined by a Division Bench in Writ Petition No.625/2016, where it was held that the said Government Resolution ipso facto does not suggest withdrawal of the benefit conferred on District Awardee Teachers under the Circular dated 12/12/2000. In that case, the State was directed to restore the benefits. Similarly, in a batch of petitions (Writ Petition Nos.5419/2018, 2033/2018, 5420/2018, 5421/2018, 5858/2018, 5859/2018, and 6474/2018), the same issue was addressed, and the State's reliance on a subsequent Government Resolution dated 04/09/2018 was also rejected. The Court, following the earlier decisions, held that the petitioner is entitled to the same relief. The Court allowed the writ petition, directing the respondents to restore the incentive increment to the petitioner and continue to pay the same in accordance with the Circular dated 12/12/2000. The rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Incentive Increment - District Awardee Teacher - Circular dated 12/12/2000 - Government Resolution dated 24/08/2017 - The petitioner, a District Awardee Teacher, was granted one increment as incentive on 05/09/2007 under the Circular dated 12/12/2000. The State discontinued the benefit relying on Government Resolution dated 24/08/2017. The Division Bench in earlier petitions held that the said Government Resolution does not ipso facto suggest withdrawal of the benefit. The Court followed the earlier decision and directed restoration of the benefit. (Paras 3-4) B) Service Law - Vested Rights - Withdrawal of Benefit - Government Resolution - The Court held that the Government Resolution dated 24/08/2017 cannot be interpreted to withdraw the incentive increment already conferred on the petitioner. The benefit having been granted under the Circular dated 12/12/2000, the petitioner had a vested right to continue to receive the increment. The State's reliance on subsequent Government Resolutions was rejected. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Government Resolution dated 24/08/2017 and 04/09/2018 can be interpreted to withdraw the incentive increment conferred on District Awardee Teachers under the Circular dated 12/12/2000.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to restore the incentive increment to the petitioner and continue to pay the same in accordance with the Circular dated 12/12/2000. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Government Resolution cannot retrospectively withdraw vested benefits
- Circular dated 12/12/2000 confers incentive increment
- District Awardee Teacher entitled to protection of vested rights
