Bombay High Court

ASHOK RANCHOD SALUNKHEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE PRIN. SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPT. AND ANR

Disposal: Allowed

Holding

The Court held that the Tribunal’s denial of pay, allowances and backwages to the petitioner was unjustified and discriminatory, and therefore quashed that portion of the order.

Summary

The petitioner, a former contractual copying clerk appointed in 1992, was regularised as a clerk on 12 January 2005 under the Government Resolution of 10 March 2005, which provided for absorption of clerks with over ten years of service. The petitioner sought backwages, pay and allowances for the period prior to regularisation, citing a similar employee, Sarjerao Kshirsagar, who had been granted such benefits by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal, however, denied the petitioner’s claim for monetary benefits without providing reasons, prompting a writ petition challenging the discriminatory treatment. The High Court examined the Tribunal’s findings, noted the lack of justification for the denial, and emphasized the principle of equality among similarly situated employees. Consequently, the Court quashed the clause denying backwages and ordered that the petitioner receive all monetary benefits retroactive to 10 March 2005 within eight weeks.

Issues considered

Whether the denial of pay, allowances and backwages to the petitioner, who is similarly situated to other employees regularised under the 10 March 2005 Government Resolution, violates principles of equality and non‑discrimination.
Whether the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal's order denying monetary benefits without reasoning is liable to be set aside by the High Court.

Subjects

regularisation
backwages
pay and allowances
equality
discrimination
government resolution
service absorption
writ petition

Judgment

                                                                69 wp-8583-24.doc


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                     WRIT PETITION NO. 8583 OF 2024

Ashok Pandurang Salunkhe.                              ...Petitioner.
        Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Another.                  ...Respondents.
                            ——————
Mr. Abhijeet Kulkarni and Vishal K. Hande i/b Sachin K. Hande for the Petitioner.
Mr. P. V. Nelson Rajan, AGP for the Respondent-State.
                                 ——————
                                    Coram :       Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
                                                  Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
                                    Date        : September 7, 2026.
P. C. :

1.         The Petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 19 th

December 2022 to the extent that he has been denied pay and

allowances       /   backwages    of     previous    service,   while    granting

regularisation in service on the basis of Government Resolution dated

10th March 2005.

2.         Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the Petitioner was

appointed as copying clerk by order of 18 th June 1992 at Jat Tahsil

Office on contractual basis till he was absorbed as regular employee as

copying clerk on 12th January 2005.

3.         On 10th March 2005, the Government Resolution was issued

formulating scheme for absorption of persons working as copying clerks

without salary, in regular employment on Class-III posts. As per the said


Patil-SR                               1 of 4
                                                          69 wp-8583-24.doc


scheme, persons who were working as copying clerks for more than 10

years as on 10th March 2005, were to be directly absorbed in

Government employment on Class-III posts in accordance with their

educational qualification.     The District Collectors were directed to

prepare a waiting list and to appoint them in regular employment as per

available vacancies.     Accordingly, the list of eligible candidates was

prepared.       No steps were taken despite the Petitioner holding the

requisite qualification for being appointed as clerk.

4.         The Petition states that eligible candidates from the Sangli

District had approached the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal [for

short “Tribunal”] which has directed absorption of eligible candidates

along with all consequential benefits on the date of GR. The Petitioner

being similarly situated employee, made an application before the

Tribunal by way of Original Application No.458 of 2021 and the

impugned order came to be passed denying the Petitioner benefits of

pay and allowances and backwages of the previous service period.

Hence, the present petition.

5.         Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner would point out

that in case of similarly situated employee, the Tribunal in Original

Application No.1016 of 2026 has granted regularisation in service on the

post of Talathi with effect from 10 th March 2005 as per the Government

Resolution dated 10th March 2005 and had also granted all monetary


Patil-SR                          2 of 4
                                                            69 wp-8583-24.doc


benefits of pay and allowance with effect from 10th March 2005. He has

taken this Court through the impugned order in order to contend that

there is no justification for denying the pay and allowances / backwages

for the previous service period, as granted to the similarly situated

employees.

6.         Learned AGP would take this Court through the affidavit-in-reply

and would submit that the Tribunal had granted relief of declaration in

addition to regularisation of service, however, has rejected the prayer

for grant of pay and allowances / backwages for the previous service

period, which does not warrant any interference by this Court.

7.         We have minutely perused the impugned order. The impugned

order dated 19th December 2022 specifically records the order which

was passed in the case of similarly situated employee, i.e., Sarjerao

Kshirsagar, who was absorbed with effect from 10th March 2005. There

is a specific finding that the present Petitioner though similarly situated

is discriminated and as such it is a case of recurring and continuing cause

of action. The observation of the Tribunal is in the context of the

Respondent’s contention therein as regards the Original Application

being time barred. Once there is a finding by the Tribunal that the

Petitioner is similarly situated as Sarjerao Kshirsagar, there is no

justification for discrimination while granting relief in terms under the

same GR dated 10th March 2005. The Tribunal has declined the benefits


Patil-SR                            3 of 4
                                                              69 wp-8583-24.doc


of pay and allowances / back-wages for the previous service period

without assigning any reasons and findings. The rejection of relief of

backwages is sans any reasoning. Perusal of the order of identically

placed employee Sarjerao Kshirsagar would indicate that along with

regularisation, the said employee was also granted all monetary

benefits of pay and allowances with effect from 10th March 2005. We do

not find any justification for discriminating the present Petitioner.

8.         In light of the above, the petition is allowed. Clause (c) of the

impugned order dated 19th December 2022 to the extent that the

benefit of pay and allowances / back-wages for the previous service

period is declined is hereby quashed and set aside. The Petitioner is

entitled to all monetary benefits of pay and allowances / back-wages to

the post of Clerk with effect from 10th March 2005. The said benefits to

be paid to the Petitioner within a period of eight weeks from today.

9.         Petition is allowed in above terms.



 [Neeraj P. Dhote, J.]                           [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]




Patil-SR                              4 of 4

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…