Bombay High Court Allows Petition Challenging Exclusion of Assistant Superintendent from Justice Shetty Commission Benefits. Government Resolution dated 8.3.2013 and letter dated 30.10.2014 quashed to the extent they exclude the petitioner from pay revision benefits.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD In Favour of Accused
  • 61
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Amanulla Khan Pathan, an Assistant Superintendent of Civil Court (Junior Division), Deoni, filed a writ petition challenging a letter dated 30.10.2014 and a Government Resolution dated 8.3.2013 to the extent they excluded him from the benefits of the Justice Shetty Commission's recommendations. The petitioner had been promoted from Senior Clerk to Assistant Superintendent. The court heard arguments from Mr. G.L. Deshpande for the petitioner, Mr. K.G. Patil for the State, and Mr. C.K. Shinde for respondent nos. 3 and 5. The court allowed the petition, quashing the impugned letter and Government Resolution to the extent they excluded the petitioner from the benefits, and also set aside the order directing refixation of pay and recovery. Rule was made returnable forthwith and the petition was taken up for final hearing with consent of parties.

Headnote

A) Service Law - Pay Revision - Justice Shetty Commission - Exclusion from Benefits - The petitioner, an Assistant Superintendent of Civil Court (S.D.), challenged the Government Resolution dated 8.3.2013 and letter dated 30.10.2014 which excluded him from the benefits of the Justice Shetty Commission's recommendations. The court held that the petitioner is entitled to the benefits and quashed the impugned orders to the extent they exclude him. (Paras 1-3)

B) Service Law - Recovery of Excess Payment - Refixation of Pay - The court also set aside the order directing refixation of the petitioner's pay and recovery of alleged excess payment, as the petitioner was entitled to the pay revision benefits. (Para 3)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the petitioner, an Assistant Superintendent of Civil Court (S.D.), is entitled to the benefits of the recommendations of the Justice Shetty Commission and whether the Government Resolution dated 8.3.2013 and the letter dated 30.10.2014 excluding him from such benefits are valid.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Petition allowed. The letter dated 30.10.2014 and Government Resolution dated 8.3.2013 are quashed to the extent they exclude the petitioner from benefits of Justice Shetty Commission. The order directing refixation of pay and recovery is set aside.

Law Points

  • Pay revision benefits
  • Justice Shetty Commission
  • Assistant Superintendent of Civil Court
  • Government Resolution
  • Refixation of pay
  • Recovery of excess payment
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2015 LawText (BOM) (08) 13

Writ Petition No.429 of 2015

2015-08-13

S.V. Gangapurwala, V.K. Jadhav

Mr. G.L. Deshpande, Mr. K.G. Patil, Mr. C.K. Shinde

Amanulla Khan S/o Amir Khan Pathan

State of Maharashtra, Accountant General, Accounts Department, Civil Court Deoni, Principal Secretary Law and Judiciary Department, Civil Judge (Junior Division) Deoni

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging exclusion from pay revision benefits

Remedy Sought

Quashing of letter dated 30.10.2014 and Government Resolution dated 8.3.2013 to the extent they exclude the petitioner from benefits of Justice Shetty Commission, and setting aside order directing refixation of pay and recovery

Filing Reason

Petitioner was excluded from benefits of Justice Shetty Commission recommendations

Issues

Whether the petitioner is entitled to benefits of Justice Shetty Commission Whether the Government Resolution and letter excluding him are valid

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner's counsel submitted that petitioner was earlier working as Senior Clerk and later promoted to Assistant Superintendent, and is entitled to benefits

Ratio Decidendi

The petitioner, being an Assistant Superintendent of Civil Court, is entitled to the benefits of the Justice Shetty Commission's recommendations, and the impugned orders excluding him are invalid.

Judgment Excerpts

Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petitioner assails the letter dated 30.10.2014, so also Government Resolution dated 8.3.2013, to the extent it excludes the employee i.e. Assistant Superintendent of Civil Court (S.D.) from benefits of recommendation of Justice Shetty Commission, so also the order directing refixation of the pay of the petitioner and the recovery claimed.

Procedural History

Writ petition filed in 2015; heard on 23.06.2015; judgment pronounced on 13.08.2015.

Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Petition Challenging Exclusion of Assistant Superintendent from Justice Shetty Commission Benefits. Government Resolution dated 8.3.2013 and letter dated 30.10.2014 quashed to the extent they exclude the petitioner from pay r...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Revenue's Appeal in Income Tax Case — Contract for Manufacture of Pharmaceutical Products Held to be Sale, Not Works Contract Under Section 194C of Income Tax Act, 1961. The court upheld the ITAT's decision that the agre...