Read Time: 05 minutes
The petitioners were appointed as managers according to the Recruitment Rules of 2011 for a term of 5 years, which was extended from time to time. However, they argued that their pay scale was not increased in accordance with the position they held.
The Bombay High Court has asked the Maharashtra State Government to regularize the services of court managers in different districts in the state of Maharashtra, as directed by the Supreme Court in 2019.
The division bench of the high court, consisting of Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Jitendra Jain, heard 17 petitions filed by different court managers working in various district courts of Maharashtra.
The petitioners were appointed as managers according to the Recruitment Rules of 2011 for a term of 5 years, which was extended from time to time.
However, they argued that their pay scale was not increased in accordance with the position they held.
They contended that their pay should have been increased as per the 6th and 7th Pay Commissions, which had not been implemented yet.
In its order dated November 29, 2023, the high court noted that on September 20, 2023, it had issued a detailed order to implement the directions passed by the Supreme Court in 2019, directing the state government to regularize the appointment of court managers.
Following the order on September 20, the Registrar of the high court had written to the Principal Secretary and RLA Government of Maharashtra, referring to the high court’s and Supreme Court’s order.
The high court, in its order on September 29, recorded that after the letter sent by the registrar, the state government had sought clarification. However, the bench stated that the observations made by the high court were quite clear.
The high court emphasized that any framing of rules, stated to be the subject matter pending before the General Rules Committee, cannot stand in the way for the State Government to take an appropriate decision and complying with orders passed by the Supreme Court directing regularization.
The division bench, in its order, recorded that it was not permissible for the state government to avoid making decisions regarding regularization that are extraneous to the orders of the Supreme Court.
“We may also observe that it would not be permissible for the State Government, to not take a decision on the regularization proposal on any conditions which are extraneous to the orders passed by the Supreme Court, and the orders passed by the Supreme Court are required to be implemented in letter and spirit,” the order reads.
Case title: Panchksharayya Mathapati vs UOI & Ors
Please Login or Register
