1 wp 9045-2023.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9045 OF 2023 Rajendra Pandurang Patil Age : 59 years, Occu. : Nil, Chandramohan Villa Apartment Plot No. 65, Ganesh Colony, Jalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Municipal Commissioner, Jalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon. .. Respondents Mr. G. V. Wani, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. R. S. Wani, AGP for Respondent No. 1. Mr. L. V. Sangit, Advocate for Respondent No. 2. CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT AND JITENDRA JAIN, JJ. Date on which reserved for order : 12th August, 2026. Date on which order pronounced : 24th September, 2026. FINAL ORDER ( PER KISHORE C. SANT, J. ) :- 1. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner, learned A.G.P. for the State and learned advocate for respondent No. 2. 2026:BHC-AUG:43630-DB 2 wp 9045-2023.odt 2. The petitioner herein was appointed to the post of Librarian in the year 1990. He was made permanent in the year 1991. During the service he completed his Master’s in Commerce and also obtained degree of Bachelor in Library Science. The petitioner thus acquired necessary qualification making him eligible for an appointment to the post of Librarian. The petitioner was therefore promoted to the post of Librarian Class-III by an order dated 13.05.1997 in the pay-scale of Rs. 1400-2600. The Municipal Council by resolution dated 26.11.1999 resolved to upgrade the pay-scale of the petitioner from Rs. 1400-2600 to Rs. 2200-3700. The Chief Officer of the then Municipal Council, Jalgaon sought guidance from the Government to implement the upgraded pay- scale by letter dated 30.12.1999. In response to the communication by the council the Government granted an approval. The council therefore again passed a resolution on 15.01.2001 and granted the petitioner a pay-scale of Rs. 2200- 3700. After that the proposal was also forwarded to the Deputy Director of Municipal Administration by the Collector for appropriate action. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that, however, the proposal to 3 wp 9045-2023.odt upgrade the pay-scale to the petitioner was not responded by the Government. It is thereafter the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation again sent proposal to the Government on 28.11.2006. Necessary action was taken thereafter by letter dated 22.03.2007 by the Deputy Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jalgaon informing the petitioner that he would be a Chief Librarian. The general body of Municipal Corporation again passed a resolution on 22.06.2007 pursuant to which a communication was sent on 03.08.2007 to the Government. The Government granted approval to the resolution to grant pay-scale of Rs. 5500-9000 applicable to the Chief Librarian to the petitioner. However, still the Corporation has not implemented the same. The petitioner therefore is required to approach this Court. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Wani for the petitioner vehemently argued that when the Government has granted approval to the petitioner as Chief Librarian in the pay-scale of Rs. 5500-9000 and to extend the benefit of 5th pay commission, the Corporation now is not acting upon the same. He submits that, in fact, it was a resolution of the Corporation itself by which it was proposed to grant the petitioner a pay-scale of the Chief Librarian. Now for the 4 wp 9045-2023.odt reasons best known to the Corporation, the said is not being implemented. He relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Ashok Motiram Jadhav Vs. The Director Medical Education and Research and Ors1. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Sangit for respondent No. 2 vehemently opposes the petition. A reply is also filed by respondent No. 2 – Corporation. It is the case of respondent No. 2 that there were two posts of Librarian. One Vaishali Dahale was senior and therefore, she was addressed as Chief Librarian only for the name sake. It is specific case that there is no appointment or promotion given to the petitioner to the post of Chief Librarian as the said post was not in existence. He thus submits that there is no question of giving pay-scale of the Chief Librarian to the petitioner. The Municipal Commissioner by communication dated 21.09.2021 had communicated that the pay-scale cannot be made applicable to the petitioner. He submits that, inspite of this, there was no response further from the Government. He submits that in special audit report of 2019, an objection was raised on 04.02.2022 stopping the monetary benefits of the post of Chief Librarian. He thus submits that the petitioner cannot be given the 1 2026:BHC -AS : 8490-DB. 5 wp 9045-2023.odt pay-scale till special audit report of 2019 becomes final. It is further argued that, the petitioner has not submitted confidential reports for five years and therefore, he is not eligible to get the benefits of the scale. Finally, he submits that, as per the audit objection while petitioner was appointed without following rules. No rules were followed even while promoting the petitioner. He prays for dismissal of the petition. 6. The learned A.G.P. prays for passing appropriate order. 7. This Court has heard the parties. About factual position there is no dispute. There is also no dispute that the Government had approved the grant of pay-scale of Chief Librarian by communication dated 21.05.2008. This was specifically on proposal dated 03.08.2007 by the Deputy Commissioner of respondent No. 2. Looking at the communication dated 03.08.2007 it is clearly seen that it was the resolution passed by the Corporation itself to grant pay-scale of Rs. 6500-200-10500 pursuant to resolution dated 22.06.2007. It is not clear that when this was the position as to what has made the Corporation not to grant the pay-scale in spite of approval by the Government dated 21.05.2008. Now argument is raised by respondent No. 2 that 6 wp 9045-2023.odt though there was a resolution passed by the Municipal Corporation, there was no post available of Chief Librarian. To this again the question arises as to once having sent a letter for approval what made the Corporation to take different stand, that too after approval is granted by the Government. On this query, there is no satisfactory answer given by the respondent. A reliance is placed on resolution No. 400 dated 24.03.1999 whereby it is stated that Vaishali Dahale was senior and therefore, she was termed as Chief Librarian. She was assigned with the duty of communication with the Government and to look after financial aspects. The petitioner was assigned with the work of controlling the library administration. It is also shown that a specific letter was issued to Vaishali Dahale dated 17.05.1999 that she will be addressed as Chief Librarian. It is pointed out there is nothing on record to show that she was actually appointed or promoted as Chief Librarian. It is thereafter communication dated 03.08.2007 on the basis of resolution dated 22.06.2007 was passed to give salary of Chief Librarian. 8. The judgment in the case of Ashok Motiram Jadhav (supra), is in respect of Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS). In the 7 wp 9045-2023.odt facts of the case, this Court finds that the said judgment is perfectly applicable. The petitioner is thus entitled to get the benefit of ACPS. 9. Considering all above aspects, this Court finds that once the approval is granted by the State Government there was no reason for the Corporation to issue letter dated 21.09.2021 stating that there is no post available of Chief Librarian and therefore, pay- scale applicable to that post cannot be made applicable. This is wholly against the action of the Corporation itself. There is also an order by the Corporation on record dated 20.10.2023 wherein, post facto sanction is given to all the appointments made during the period from 1991-1992 to 1997-1998. Further office order was issued on that basis on 25.01.2024 making recommendations of 7th pay commission applicable to the employees of the Corporation. 10. Thus, considering all above, this Court finds that, now the Corporation cannot refuse to grant pay-scale applicable to the post of Chief Librarian to the petitioner. Even otherwise the prayer of the petitioner is to grant time bound promotion scale in the year 2009 and second in 2021. 8 wp 9045-2023.odt 11. Considering all above, this Court finds that the petition needs to be allowed and the same is hereby allowed in terms of prayer clauses (C) and (D). 12. With this, the writ petition stands disposed of. ( JITENDRA JAIN, J.) ( KISHORE C. SANT, J. ) 13. At this stage, learned advocate for the petitioner prays for further direction to the respondents to release benefits within stipulated period. 14. The benefits be given alongwith arrears within six (06) months from today. ( JITENDRA JAIN, J.) ( KISHORE C. SANT, J. ) P.S.B.