RAJENDRA PANDURANG PATILversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:43630-DB


                                                1            wp 9045-2023.odt



                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 WRIT PETITION NO. 9045 OF 2023

                 Rajendra Pandurang Patil
                 Age : 59 years, Occu. : Nil,
                 Chandramohan Villa Apartment
                 Plot No. 65, Ganesh Colony,
                 Jalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon.                          .. Petitioner

                        Versus

                 1.     The State of Maharashtra
                        Through its Secretary
                        Urban Development Department,
                        Mantralaya, Mumbai.

                 2.     The Municipal Commissioner,
                        Jalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon.                   .. Respondents

                 Mr. G. V. Wani, Advocate for the Petitioner.
                 Mr. R. S. Wani, AGP for Respondent No. 1.
                 Mr. L. V. Sangit, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.

                                         CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT AND
                                                 JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.

                 Date on which reserved for order : 12th August, 2026.

                 Date on which order pronounced : 24th September, 2026.

                 FINAL ORDER ( PER KISHORE C. SANT, J. ) :-

                 1.     Heard learned advocate for the petitioner, learned A.G.P. for

                 the State and learned advocate for respondent No. 2.
                                2              wp 9045-2023.odt


2.      The petitioner herein was appointed to the post of Librarian

in the year 1990. He was made permanent in the year 1991.

During the service he completed his Master’s in Commerce and

also obtained degree of Bachelor in Library Science. The petitioner

thus acquired necessary qualification making him eligible for an

appointment to the post of Librarian. The petitioner was therefore

promoted to the post of Librarian Class-III by an order dated

13.05.1997 in the pay-scale of Rs. 1400-2600. The Municipal

Council by resolution dated 26.11.1999 resolved to upgrade the

pay-scale of the petitioner from Rs. 1400-2600 to Rs. 2200-3700.

The Chief Officer of the then Municipal Council, Jalgaon sought

guidance from the Government to implement the upgraded pay-

scale    by   letter   dated   30.12.1999.    In    response      to   the

communication by the council the Government granted an

approval. The council therefore again passed a resolution on

15.01.2001 and granted the petitioner a pay-scale of Rs. 2200-

3700. After that the proposal was also forwarded to the Deputy

Director of Municipal Administration by the Collector for

appropriate action.


3.      It is the case of the petitioner that, however, the proposal to
                              3              wp 9045-2023.odt


upgrade the pay-scale to the petitioner was not responded by the

Government. It is thereafter the Commissioner of Municipal

Corporation   again   sent   proposal   to   the    Government   on

28.11.2006. Necessary action was taken thereafter by letter dated

22.03.2007 by the Deputy Commissioner, Municipal Corporation,

Jalgaon informing the petitioner that he would be a Chief

Librarian. The general body of Municipal Corporation again

passed a resolution on 22.06.2007 pursuant to which a

communication was sent on 03.08.2007 to the Government. The

Government granted approval to the resolution to grant pay-scale

of Rs. 5500-9000 applicable to the Chief Librarian to the

petitioner. However, still the Corporation has not implemented the

same. The petitioner therefore is required to approach this Court.


4.    Learned advocate Mr. Wani for the petitioner vehemently

argued that when the Government has granted approval to the

petitioner as Chief Librarian in the pay-scale of Rs. 5500-9000 and

to extend the benefit of 5 th pay commission, the Corporation now

is not acting upon the same. He submits that, in fact, it was a

resolution of the Corporation itself by which it was proposed to

grant the petitioner a pay-scale of the Chief Librarian. Now for the
                               4             wp 9045-2023.odt


reasons best known to the Corporation, the said is not being

implemented. He relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in

the case of Ashok Motiram Jadhav Vs. The Director Medical

Education and Research and Ors1.


5.      Learned advocate Mr. Sangit for respondent No. 2

vehemently opposes the petition. A reply is also filed by

respondent No. 2 – Corporation. It is the case of respondent No. 2

that there were two posts of Librarian. One Vaishali Dahale was

senior and therefore, she was addressed as Chief Librarian only for

the name sake. It is specific case that there is no appointment or

promotion given to the petitioner to the post of Chief Librarian as

the said post was not in existence. He thus submits that there is no

question of giving pay-scale of the Chief Librarian to the

petitioner. The Municipal Commissioner by communication dated

21.09.2021 had communicated that the pay-scale cannot be made

applicable to the petitioner. He submits that, inspite of this, there

was no response further from the Government. He submits that in

special audit report of 2019, an objection was raised on

04.02.2022 stopping the monetary benefits of the post of Chief

Librarian. He thus submits that the petitioner cannot be given the

1    2026:BHC -AS : 8490-DB.
                               5            wp 9045-2023.odt


pay-scale till special audit report of 2019 becomes final. It is

further argued that, the petitioner has not submitted confidential

reports for five years and therefore, he is not eligible to get the

benefits of the scale. Finally, he submits that, as per the audit

objection while petitioner was appointed without following rules.

No rules were followed even while promoting the petitioner. He

prays for dismissal of the petition.


6.    The learned A.G.P. prays for passing appropriate order.


7.    This Court has heard the parties. About factual position

there is no dispute. There is also no dispute that the Government

had approved the grant of pay-scale of Chief Librarian by

communication dated 21.05.2008. This was specifically on

proposal dated 03.08.2007 by the Deputy Commissioner of

respondent No. 2. Looking at the communication dated

03.08.2007 it is clearly seen that it was the resolution passed by

the Corporation itself to grant pay-scale of Rs. 6500-200-10500

pursuant to resolution dated 22.06.2007. It is not clear that when

this was the position as to what has made the Corporation not to

grant the pay-scale in spite of approval by the Government dated

21.05.2008. Now argument is raised by respondent No. 2 that
                              6             wp 9045-2023.odt


though there was a resolution passed by the Municipal

Corporation, there was no post available of Chief Librarian. To this

again the question arises as to once having sent a letter for

approval what made the Corporation to take different stand, that

too after approval is granted by the Government. On this query,

there is no satisfactory answer given by the respondent. A reliance

is placed on resolution No. 400 dated 24.03.1999 whereby it is

stated that Vaishali Dahale was senior and therefore, she was

termed as Chief Librarian. She was assigned with the duty of

communication with the Government and to look after financial

aspects. The petitioner was assigned with the work of controlling

the library administration. It is also shown that a specific letter

was issued to Vaishali Dahale dated 17.05.1999 that she will be

addressed as Chief Librarian. It is pointed out there is nothing on

record to show that she was actually appointed or promoted as

Chief Librarian. It is thereafter communication dated 03.08.2007

on the basis of resolution dated 22.06.2007 was passed to give

salary of Chief Librarian.


8.    The judgment in the case of Ashok Motiram Jadhav (supra),

is in respect of Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS). In the
                              7              wp 9045-2023.odt


facts of the case, this Court finds that the said judgment is

perfectly applicable. The petitioner is thus entitled to get the

benefit of ACPS.


9.    Considering all above aspects, this Court finds that once the

approval is granted by the State Government there was no reason

for the Corporation to issue letter dated 21.09.2021 stating that

there is no post available of Chief Librarian and therefore, pay-

scale applicable to that post cannot be made applicable. This is

wholly against the action of the Corporation itself. There is also an

order by the Corporation on record dated 20.10.2023 wherein,

post facto sanction is given to all the appointments made during

the period from 1991-1992 to 1997-1998. Further office order

was issued on that basis on 25.01.2024 making recommendations

of 7th pay commission applicable to the employees of the

Corporation.


10.   Thus, considering all above, this Court finds that, now the

Corporation cannot refuse to grant pay-scale applicable to the post

of Chief Librarian to the petitioner. Even otherwise the prayer of

the petitioner is to grant time bound promotion scale in the year

2009 and second in 2021.
                                  8             wp 9045-2023.odt


11.      Considering all above, this Court finds that the petition

needs to be allowed and the same is hereby allowed in terms of

prayer clauses (C) and (D).


12.      With this, the writ petition stands disposed of.



( JITENDRA JAIN, J.)                          ( KISHORE C. SANT, J. )


13.      At this stage, learned advocate for the petitioner prays for

further direction to the respondents to release benefits within

stipulated period.


14.      The benefits be given alongwith arrears within six (06)

months from today.



( JITENDRA JAIN, J.)                          ( KISHORE C. SANT, J. )




P.S.B.