Shashikant vs The State of Maharashtra, The Deputy Secretary, State information Officer and Desk Officer, State Information Commission, Bench at Aurangabad and The Secretary, State Information Commission

Naresh H. Patil, J.—Heard. Rule returnable forthwith. The petitioner was appointed as Desk Officer by Respondent No. 2 in the office of State Information Commission, Aurangabad on contract basis for six months; from time to time, subject to terms and conditions set out in the appointment order dated 16th May, 2008 (Exhibit-A, page 12 of the paper book). The said contractual appointments of the petitioner were for six months by giving a technical break of one day.

It is the contention of the petitioner that since the State Government had made applicable the revised pay scales of 6th Pay commission w.e.f. 1.1.2006, he is entitled to receive the difference of honorarium, as per the revised pay scale with retrospective effect, i.e. 1.1.2006.

It is the further contention of the petitioner that in view of the last order, appointing the petitioner on contract basis, the petitioner ought to have been awarded honorarium @ Rs. 10,000/- per month. It is further submitted that the 6th Pay Commission benefits are made applicable to the employees w.e.f. 1.1.2006. To substantiate his claim, the petitioner places reliance on the communication dated 21st November, 2009 issued by the State Information Commission (Page 76 of the paper book).

The petitioner has submitted representations for grant of such difference of honorarium from time to time, but in vain.

The petitioner has further contended that the respondents have given him discriminatory treatment, as according to the petitioner, one Shri P.K. Sakhre, who is similarly placed employee like the petitioner, is granted revised honorarium.

As the petitioner is not paid arrears of difference of honorarium in question, he filed original Application No. 468/2011 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Aurangabad.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal without notice to other side, dismissed the original application of the applicant/petitioner, vide order dated 9.9.2011 observing that the petitioner did not place on record any order passed by the authority fixing the pay of the applicant as per the 6th Pay Commission. Aggrieved by the said order, review application was moved, which also came to be dismissed by order dated 8.12.2011.

The main issues raised are, - i) as to who was the authority to fix the pay of the petitioner and ii) Since the 6th Pay Commission benefits are applicable to the petitioner from 2006 onward, the emoluments of the petitioner while he worked on contract basis have to be calculated accordingly.

In response to the notice, the State filed its affidavit in reply. We have perused the same. Learned AGP submits that in view of the rules framed by the Government, the persons appointed on contract basis, like the petitioner, are not entitled to get the benefits of revised honorarium under 6th Pay Commission.

Considering the submissions advanced; the materials placed on record and the issues raised, we find that the parties are required to be re-heard by the Tribunal. The impugned order does not deal with the real issue raised by the petitioner.

In our view, for the reasons stated\\ above, both the orders passed by the Tribunal are set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal with a direction to dispose of the same on its own merits in accordance with law within the period of three months from the date of receipt of the writ of this Court. Rule made absolute in the above terms. No costs.