Niranjan Ashok Patil vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr.

(PER : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)

Heard Mr. Narayan Bubna, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, Mr. K. S. Thorat, ‘B’ Panel Counsel for Respondent No.1 – State and Mr. Bhushan Chandrakant Joshi, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the parties.

Petitioner by the present Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is before this Court being aggrieved by the Government Resolution dated 04.01.2022 issued by the Respondent No.1 and the appointment order dated 18.08.2023 issued by the Respondent No.2, to the extent the same does not approve and absorb the Petitioner on the post of Accountant.

The material facts of the case are that on 21.08.2012 the Petitioner was appointed as Accountant by the Respondent No.2 under the RCH Program of the State-Government. On 19.05.2014 the post occupied by the Petitioner was made permanent and the Respondent No.2 sought for sanction from the State-Government.

Though, on 04.01.2022 the State-Government granted sanction, however such sanction was wrongly granted to the Petitioner’s post in the pay-scale of the Clerk. Consequently, vide order dated 18.08.2023 the Petitioner was demoted to the post of Clerk.

Petitioner learnt that persons working as Accountant in other similar Corporations were sanctioned in the pay-scale of Accountant and were absorbed on the said post. Petitioner therefore submitted a representation dated 09.09.2024 to the Respondent requesting for consideration of the Petitioners’ case on similar lines. No response was received to the said representation.

Petitioner was paid the salary of Accountant, however, consequent to the order dated 18.08.2023 demoting the Petitioner from the post of Accountant to the post of Clerk, the Respondent No. 2 – Corporation started recovery from the Petitioners salary.

Mr. Narayan Bubna, learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner was appointed as an Accountant in the pay- grade of Rs. 4300/-. He submits that Respondent No.1 on an erroneous assumption that the Petitioner was in the pay-grade of Rs.2400/- issued the appointment order dated 18.08.2023 demoting the Petitioner to the post of Clerk. He submits that Respondent No.2 had acknowledged the mistake way back as December, 2015 in its letter dated 05.12.2015 addressed to Respondent No.1. He therefore submits that the Government Resolution dated 04.01.2022 declining to absorb the Petitioner on the post of Accountant and the appointment order dated 18.08.2023 are liable to be quashed.

Mr. K. S. Thorat, ‘B’ Panel Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 submits that the Respondent No.1 does not dispute that reference to the pay-grade of the Petitioner as Rs. 2400/- in the Government Resolution dated 04.01.2022, was a mistake.

From the rival contentions the question that falls for our consideration is whether when the Respondents agree that reference to the pay-grade of the Petitioner as 2400/- is a mistake, the Petitioner could be denied his appointment as an Accountant?

Respondent No.2 vide letter dated 05.12.2015 addressed to the Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai has stated as follows :-

Afore-referred letter dated 05.12.2015 in unequivocal terms admits that the pay-grade in the context of the Petitioner was inadvertently mentioned as Rs.2400/- when factually, the pay-grade of the Petitioner was Rs. 4300/-.

Despite the said letter issued in the year 2015, paragraph No.3 of the Government Resolution dated 04.01.2022 makes a reference to the following :-

Once the mistake in referring to the pay-grade of the Accountant as 2400/- is admitted and acknowledged, there was no justification for depriving the Petitioner of his entitlement to be absorbed as an Accountant in the Respondent No.2 – Corporation. Refusal / non- grant of approval for absorption of the Petitioner to the post of Accountant in the pay-grade of Rs.4300/- is therefore liable to be quashed. Hence, this Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. Consequently, the appointment order dated 18.08.2023 issued by Respondent No.2 demoting the Petitioner to the post of Clerk is quashed and set aside.

The proposal of Respondent No.2 seeking approval for the absorption of the Petitioner on the post of Accountant is granted. The Respondent No.2 is directed to absorb the Petitioner on the post of Accountant in the pay-grade of Rs.4300/- with all consequential benefits attached to the said post w.e.f. the date of original appointment. Respondent No.2 is directed to issue necessary order to the Petitioner, within 30 days from today.

Rule made absolute in the above-said terms.

There shall be no order as to costs.