Megha 22_wp_6774_2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6774 OF 2025 Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ...Petitioner V/s. Pradeep Shinde ...Respondent ________________ Mr. Akshay Shinde with Mr. Santosh Parad for the Petitioner-MCGM. Mr. Burham Bukhari i/b. Mr. Vinod Mutalik for the Respondent. ________________ CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED: 20 AUGUST 2026. P.C.: 1) The Petition challenges Award dated 19 March 2024 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fourth Labour Court, Mumbai, answering Reference (IDA) No.165 of 2019 in the affirmative. The Labour Court has directed extension of pay scale Code D-15 and other benefits arising therefrom to the Respondent. 2) I have heard Mr. Shinde, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner- Municipal Corporation and Mr. Bukhari, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-employee and have considered the submissions canvassed by them. I have gone through the findings Page No. 1 of 4 20 August 2026 2026:BHC-AS:34659 Megha 22_wp_6774_2025 recorded by the Labour Court and also perused the records of the case filed alongwith the Petition. 3) It appears that the Municipal Corporation maintains two different pay scales for the post of Electrician Grade-II depending on the method of recruitment. If a person is directly recruited on the post of Electrician Grade-II, he is granted same scale of D-15 whereas if an employee reaches the post of Electrician Grade-II through promotion he is granted old pay scale of D-19. This position is confirmed by the Municipal Corporation by pleading in the written statement as under:- The First Party further submit that in the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai there are two criterias distincly formulated for the appointment of Electrician Grade-II i.e. either by promotion from the Labourers for by the selection. Hence, this is bring to the kind notice of Hon'ble Court that Second Party workman was not appointed directly to the post of Electrician Grade-II but he was promoted from Labour to the Electrician Grade-II. This is bring to the kind notice of Hon'ble Court further that he was put under the payscale code of D-19 as he was initially appointed in the Mumbai Fire Brigade workshop as a Labour if he would have appointed as a Electrician Grade-II directly by selection process then he would have been put under payscale code of D-15. Hence, the claim of second party workman is totally wrong and admant in nature. The detailed reasons in support of the said denial is given in the Para No. 12 &13, 15 to 20 of this Written Statement. 4) The witness of Petitioner-Municipal Corporation also gave evidence about two different pay scales being operated in respect of the post of Electrician Grade-II depending on the method of appointment. It would be apposite to reproduce relevant part of the evidence of the Petitioner:- I further say that in the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai there are two criterias distincly formulated for the Page No. 2 of 4 20 August 2026 Megha 22_wp_6774_2025 appointment of Electrician Grade-II i.e. either by promotion from e Labourers for by the selection. Hence, this is bring to the kind notice of Hon'ble Court that Second Party workman was not appointed directly to the post of Electrician Grade-II but he was promoted from Labour to the Electrician Grade-II. This is bring to the kind notice of Hon'ble Court further that he was put under the payscale code of D-19 as he was initially appointed in the Mumbai Fire Brigade workshop as a Labour if he would have appointed as a Electrician Grade-II directly by selection process then he would have been put under payscale code of D-15. Hence, the claim of second party workman is totally wrong and admant in nature. 5) Even before this Court, the Petitioner has maintained the position that there are separate pay scales for the post of Electrician Grade-II depending on the method of appointment. It is averred in paragraph 4 of the Petition as under:- 4. The Petitioner submits that, there are two criterias formulated by the administration for the appointment of Electrician Grade II i. e. either by promotion from the labour cadre and direct selection process. The candidate appointed through promotion from labour cadre is put up under pay scale D-19 and candidate appointed through direct selection process is put up under scale D-15. 6) Mr. Shinde, submits that different pay scales are given to Electrician Grade-II in Fire Department and in the other departments on account of totally different criteria for their appointments. He submits that in the Fire Brigade Department employee earns promotion to the post of Electrician Grade-II on completion of four years of service whereas in other departments, an employee has to complete 10 years of service for becoming eligible to promotional post of Electrician Grade-II. However, this issue is totally irrelevant in view of the above stand consistently taken by the Municipal Corporation that two separate pay scales are maintained based on different methods of recruitment. It Page No. 3 of 4 20 August 2026 Megha 22_wp_6774_2025 appears that there was a joint meeting held on 4 January 2017 in which Deputy Municipal Commissioner (General Administration) had clearly opined that it was incorrect to maintain two pay scales for the same post. This is noted by the Labour Court in paragraph 31 of the impugned Award, which reads thus:- From the record it also appeared that there was joint meeting on 04/01/2017 in the said meeting the Dy. Municipal Commissioner (General Administration) has given his opinion that it is wrong to have two pay scales, but now it is not possible to change the same and it will be considered at the time of next pay revision. The minutes of meeting is on record on perusal of said minutes of meeting it shows that, the first party is accepting that the nature of work, as well as, eligibility criteria for the post of Electrician Grade-II in different departments of the first party is same. 7) Considering the above position, there is no warrant for interference in the impugned Award. Even otherwise, Mr. Bukhari has submitted that the Petitioner has retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 1 May 2024 and the difference payable is less than Rs.1,00,000/-. 8) Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] Page No. 4 of 4 20 August 2026 Signed by: Megha S. Parab Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 21/08/2026 20:24:31