(Per M.S. Sonak, J.)
1. Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the request and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. Heard Mr Zaveri for the petitioners and Mr D. Pangam, learned Advocate General who appears along with Mr Deep Shirodkar, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-state. Mr S. D. Lotlikar learned Senior Advocate appears along with Mr Shivan Desai for respondents no.3, 4 and 5 and Mr A. D. Bhobe, along with Ms A. Fernandes, appears for the Intervenors.
3. The petitioners, Section Officers of this Court, seek a Writ of Mandamus upon the respondents to provide pay parity and benefits in terms of Judgment and Order delivered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court at Bombay in Mahendra Rupwate vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Writ Petition No.1013/2015) decided on 09.08.2016, together with all consequential benefits.
4. The matter was adjourned from time to time to see if the same could be sorted out. Ultimately, the learned Advocate General pointed out that certain meetings were held and decisions arrived at. The learned Advocate General placed on record the order dated 04.01.2023 issued by the State Government extending some benefits to the petitioners.
5. Order dated 04.01.2023 is transcribed below for convenience of reference:
"DEPARTMENT OF LAW & JUDICIARY LAW (ESATBLISHMENT) DIVISION
Government of Goa,
Secretariat Porvorim-Goa
No.14/06/2018-LD(EStt.)(PF)/33 Dated 04/01/2023
The Section Officers at Mantralaya of Government of Maharashtra were made applicable for the reformed pay scale of Rs. 9300-34800-GP 4800 and Rs. 15600-39100 GP 5400 after regular service of four years, instead of the pay scale of Rs. 9300-34800-GP 4400 also, Rs. 9300-34800 GP 5400 after the service of four years from 1 st January, 2006, according to the decision of Maharashtra Government dated 11/02/2013.
The Section Officers of High Court of Bombay, Shri Mahendra F. Rupvate and others filed a Writ Petition No. 1013/2015 at High Court of Bombay at Mumbai for making applicable the revised pay scales to the Section Officers of High Court of Bombay (Appellate Side, Original Side and its Bench Offices at Nagpur, Aurangabad and Panaji Goa) as made applicable to Section Officers of Mantralaya, Government of Maharashtra vide decision dated 11/02/2013. The High Court of Bombay was pleased to pass an Order in the above Writ Petition directing the Government of Maharashtra to make applicable the Government Resolution dated 11 th February, 2013, issued by the Finance Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, to the Section Officers working in the High Court (Appellate Side, Original Side and its Bench Offices at Nagpur, Aurangabad and Panaji Goa) from the date, as it has been made applicable to the Section Officers working in Mantralaya on the basis of parity pay scales between the staff of High Court and staff of Mantralaya of Government of Maharashtra.
As per the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay dated 09/08/2016, the Government of Maharashtra made applicable to the Section Officers of High Court of Bombay (Appellate Side, Original Side and its Bench Offices at Nagpur, Aurangabad and Panaji, Goa) from January, 2006, the same scale which was made applicable to the Section Officers of Mantralaya, Government of Maharashtra vide order dated 11/02/2013.
Now, the Government of Goa is pleased to make applicable the revised Pay Scale of Rs. 9300-34800-GP 4800 and Rs. 15600-39100 GP 5400 after regular service of four years, instead of the pay scale of Rs. 9300-34800-GP 4400 also, Rs. 9300-34800 GP 5400 after the service of four years from 1 st January 2006 as the pay fixation to the Section Officers of High Court of Bombay at Goa.
The arrears of pay and allowance between 1 st of January, 2006 to 31 st January, 2013 should not be given.
The employees under the grade of Section Officers from the Appellate side, Original Side and its Bench Offices at Nagpur, Aurangabad and Panaji, Goa, if retired during the period of 1 st January, 2006 to 31 st January, 2013, their pay should be fixed in reformed pay scale. 'Their pension should be reformed considering the increments during 1 st January, 2006 to the date of his/her retirement. The arrears before this period are not payable, and the benefit of reformed pension should be given from 1 st February, 2013. Though, the pension is reformed there should not be any reformation in the retiremental benefit.
The arrears payable for the increase in the pay band should be given to the concerned working employees and the retired employees in cash by the approved aids.
The above employees shall exercise their option for fixation of pay in the related grade within a period of one month. The option once exercised shall be final.
The expenditure towards pay and allowances of the working employees shall be debited from the Budget Head from where they are drawing their salary and allowances and the pay and allowances of retired employees shall be met from the approved aid.
This issues with the concurrence of Finance (R&C) Department vide their U.O. No. 140009061 dated 03/01/2023,
By the order and in the name of the Governor of Goa
(Amir Y. Parab)
Under Secretary (Estt.)
Law Department"
6. On instructions from the petitioners, Mr Zaveri, the learned counsel for the petitioners, states that the petitioners are partially satisfied with the reliefs granted by the above order. However, he submits that the Government of Maharashtra has issued resolutions dated 10.05.2018 and 19.04.2022 and the benefits similar to those granted by the above resolutions are also due to the petitioners. He submits that the petitioners have already represented the appropriate authorities about giving such benefits. He offers that the petitioners, for the present, would be satisfied if directions are issued to the respondents to consider and dispose of petitioners' representation on such subject within a time-bound manner. He submits that should the ultimate decisions not favour the petitioners' contentions, leave may be granted to the petitioners to challenge the same by keeping all their contentions open.
7. Mr Zaveri states that the petitioners have represented on 05.05.2022 to the Registrar General of this Court. He states that the petitioners will make a detailed representation to the State Government within ten days from today. Learned Advocate General states that such representation, if made, will be disposed of in accordance with law and on its own merits within two months of its receipt. He states that the decision on this representation will be communicated to the petitioners within this period of two months. If the petitioners are not satisfied with the decision on their representation, they will have the liberty to challenge the same, including by way of raising all permissible contentions. All parties' contentions in this regard are, therefore, expressly kept open.
8. The Intervenors are the secretarial staff of this Court. According to them, even they are entitled to the benefit of the decision of this Court in Mahendra Rupwate (supra). If this is their case, it is only appropriate that they agitate their cause by instituting a separate petition and not by seeking intervention in it. Accordingly, though this Petition is being disposed of without permitting intervention, liberty is granted to the proposed intervenors to file a fresh petition if they so desire to agitate their own grievances. All parties' contentions are obviously left open because they have not been considered in this matter.
9. The Learned Advocate General states that within three months from today, necessary pay fixation orders will be issued, and the benefits in terms of the order dated 04.01.2023 will be extended to the petitioners. Mr Lotlikar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondents no.3, 4 and 5, states that the respondents whom he represents will also take expeditious steps to process the papers of the petitioners and those similarly placed in service and retired Section Officers and submit the same to the State Government so that the pay fixation and consequential benefits are made available to the petitioners at the earliest.
10. The Rule in this Petition is disposed of in the above terms without making any order for costs. Accordingly, Misc. Civil Applications, if any, do not survive, and the same are also disposed of.
