Bombay High Court Directs Implementation Of Shetty Commission Pay Scale Recommendations For District Court Stenographers From 2003
The High Court directed the State of Maharashtra to implement the recommendations, holding that the State could not postpone implementation to 15.09.2018 by relying upon a subsequent Government Resolution issued merely to rectify discrepancies in an earlier resolution.
The Bombay High Court has directed the State of Maharashtra to implement the recommendations of the Justice Shetty Commission for Stenographers working in District and Subordinate Courts with effect from 01.04.2003 and pay the resultant difference in salaries within six months.
The Court further directed that the arrears be paid with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 07.10.2009, observing that the State had repeatedly delayed implementation despite clear directions issued by the Supreme Court.
The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by Stenographers serving in various District Courts across Maharashtra seeking implementation of the Justice Shetty Commission recommendations from 01.04.2003.
The petitioners contended that although the Supreme Court had directed all States to implement the recommendations from 01.04.2003, the State Government subsequently sought to restrict certain benefits arising from a Government Resolution dated 15.09.2018 to the date of the Resolution itself rather than the date fixed by the Supreme Court.
A Division Bench of Justice Kishore C. Sant and Justice Sushil M. Ghodeswar, while referring to a previour order, reiterated: “It is not denied by the State that the Shetty Commission’s recommendations are to be made effective and implemented with effect from 01/04/2003 as directed by Hon’ble Supreme Court and accordingly, giving effect to the Government Resolution dated 15/09/2018 which has been issued for the purposes of only removing the discrepancy in the Government Resolution dated 20/10/2011, therefore, implementing the Government Resolution dated 15/09/2018 not with effect from 01/04/2003 but with effect from the date of issuance of Government Resolution i.e. 15/09/2018, in our opinion, does not bear any rationale.”
The Bench accordingly directed the State “to implement the recommendations of Shetty Commission from 01.04.2003 and the difference of salaries be paid within six (06) months.”
Advocate Pradnya S. Talekar appeared for the petitioners. Government Pleader A.B. Girase appeared for the State. Advocate Mukul Kulkarni appeared for the Bombay High Court.
Background
The petition was filed by Stenographers working in various District and Sessions Courts across Maharashtra seeking implementation of the recommendations of the Justice Shetty Commission from 01.04.2003 in terms of directions issued by the Supreme Court on 07.10.2009 in W.P. (C) No. 1022 of 1989.
The petitioners relied upon a Government Resolution dated 20.10.2011 by which the State accepted implementation of the Shetty Commission recommendations from 01.04.2003. Subsequently, the Government issued another Resolution dated 15.09.2018 to address discrepancies in the earlier Resolution relating to the grades of Stenographers. According to the petitioners, the later Resolution merely corrected an earlier mistake and could not alter the date of implementation fixed by the Supreme Court.
The State opposed the petition and argued that employees had already received benefits under the Pay Commission and that implementation of the Shetty Commission recommendations from 01.04.2003 was neither necessary nor beneficial. However, the State was unable to explain why the Government Resolutions of 2017 and 2018 did not specify any date of implementation.
Court's Observations
The Court found that the Government Resolution dated 15.09.2018 was not an independent policy decision but was issued solely to rectify discrepancies in the earlier Resolution dated 20.10.2011.
The Bench observed: “The Government Resolution dated 15/09/2018 was issued with a view to rectify the defect in the earlier Government Resolution dated 20/10/2011 which was issued for the purposes of giving effect to the recommendations of Shetty Commission in view of judgment dated 07/10/2009 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court.”
The Court held that once the 2011 Resolution had been made effective from 01.04.2003, the corrective Resolution of 2018 could not be treated differently.
Rejecting the State's stand that the benefits should be available only from 15.09.2018, the Court held that such a position was contrary to the directions issued by the Supreme Court.
The Court observed: “The subsequent Government Resolution dated 15/09/2018 cannot be said to be a decision of the State Government independent of the recommendations made by the Shetty Commission and the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 07/10/2009.”
The Bench noted that the State itself had accepted that the Shetty Commission recommendations were required to be implemented from 01.04.2003 and therefore there was no legal basis to postpone implementation of the corrected pay structure.
The Court rejected the explanation contained in the State's affidavit and found that the attempt to restrict implementation to 15.09.2018 lacked any rational basis.
The Court observed: “Hence, the submission in the affidavit-in-reply that the provisions of the Government Resolution dated 15/09/2018 will be applicable with effect from the date of issuance of the said Government Resolution is absolutely untenable.”
According to the Court, once the State accepted implementation of the Shetty Commission recommendations from 01.04.2003, every consequential correction flowing from those recommendations was also required to operate from the same date.
The Court took serious note of the manner in which the litigation had progressed and recorded that the matter had been repeatedly adjourned at the instance of the State.
The Bench observed: “This Court finds that, it is only when some benefits are to be given to the employees or when salaries are to be paid to the employees, time is taken and adjournments are sought for and the matters are delayed.”
The Court referred to multiple orders passed between 2024 and 2026 recording its displeasure regarding repeated requests for adjournments and failure of the authorities to furnish any satisfactory clarification.
Conclusion
Allowing the writ petition, the Bombay High Court directed the State of Maharashtra to implement the recommendations of the Justice Shetty Commission in respect of the petitioners with effect from 01.04.2003 and to pay the difference in salaries within six months. The Court further directed that the arrears be paid with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 07.10.2009, taking note of the prolonged delay in implementation and the conduct of the authorities during the proceedings.
Cause Title: Rajendra Ramaji Dhawale & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.