The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) has clarified that if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some relief / benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such an order does not confer any legal right on others to get the same relief as well. If a wrong is committed in an earlier case, it cannot be perpetuated. Equality is a trite, which cannot be claimed in illegality and therefore, cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner.
If an illegality and irregularity has been committed in favour of an individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a Judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing a similarly wrong order. A wrong order/decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim benefits on the basis of the wrong decision.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Arun R. Pedneker and Justice Vaishali Patil – Jadhav referred to the decision of State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Madhukar Antu Patil [Writ Petition No.3118/2021] to emphasise that Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to extend wrong decisions, and it does not envisage negative equality but only a positive aspect. Hence, the petitioner cannot claim the benefit granted to similarly placed employees without being entitled for the same.
The Bench observed that the object and purpose for introduction of the Time Bound Promotion (TBP) Scheme is to relieve the employees, at least partially, from the frustration which normally arises on account of stagnation in a particular post for long years on account of limited availability of promotional avenues.
The Bench pointed out that the scheme does not involve actual or functional promotion to the next higher post. It provides for grant of pay-scale of the next promotional higher post and in the present case, the petitioners were granted higher pay-scale when they were absorbed as CEA.
Briefly, the petitioners were appointed by the Maharashtra Water Supply and Sewerage Board, in 1986, on Work Charge Establishment (WCE). By the Government Resolution dated 31.09.1989, fourteen cadre posts were amalgamated into a single cadre known as ‘Civil Engineering Assistant’ (CEA). By Government Resolution dated 08.06.1995, the Time Bound Promotion Scheme was introduced and the Irrigation Department, took a policy decision that if a person is appointed as a Technical Assistant or on any other post and acquires the necessary qualification for CEA, such person shall be directly absorbed as a CEA. Another circular dated 29.11.1996 was issued wherein it was clarified that, temporary employees shall also be absorbed and that, even those who have completed the one-year course of CEA shall be absorbed as CEA.
In the meantime, the Water Supply Department granted permission to the Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran i.e. respondents for creation of new cadre i.e. CEA. In accordance with the scheme, the present petitioners were absorbed as CEA. Later, the petitioners were granted first Time Bound Promotion (TBP) after completion of 12 years from their initial date of appointment, which was on WCE. Subsequently, the first TBP granted to the petitioners from the date of their initial appointment on WCE is revised, and the first TBP is now granted from the date of their absorption as CEA. Revised pay fixation was made on the ground that the petitioners were not entitled to the first TBP from the date of their appointment, as their earlier services were rendered on WCE and a higher pay scale was already granted to them when they were absorbed as CEA.
Appearances:
Advocate R. P. Bhumkar, for the Petitioners
AGP V. P. Dama, along with Advocates Vinod Patil and A. G. Vasmatkar, for the Respondent
