They say the state’s directive is required so that other employees who retire a day before increment do not have to go to courts for the benefits
(From left) Litigants Shyam Lagade, Neelam Tulaskar and Vasant Utikar
After the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal gave relief to 30 government employees who retired just a day before their increment, the litigants said the state government should issue a government resolution so that all employees who retire on June 30 (for Sixth Pay Commission) and December 31 (for Seventh Pay Commission) get the same benefits without having to approach the court.
ADVERTISEMENT
Vasant Utikar, 62, a Byculla resident, retired as sales tax inspector on June 30, 2018, and was denied any incremental benefits that were to be implemented from the next day as per the Sixth Pay Commission. “I wrote numerous letters to my department heads and the state finance department, intimating them about the Supreme Court order, but they returned my plea stating that the state government has not issued any government resolution (GR) considering the implementation of revised pay scale as on July 1. So, I had no option but to move MAT,” he said.
“It is unfortunate that irrespective of earlier directives from both the apex and high courts in similar cases, the state government has not taken any proactive step to issue a GR in the interest of its own employees. The government should issue a GR notifying all departments about this directive, as every retired employee may not be in a position to approach courts or quasi-judicial bodies seeking justice,” said Utikar.
Shyamsunder Lagade, a 64-year-old from New Panvel who retired as sales tax inspector on June 30, 2017, said, “We have written a letter on behalf of all the litigants to our department post the MAT order. We will decide on the next course of action based on the response. Once the department implements the MAT order, we will write to the state government, requesting it to issue a GR, so that other colleagues who may retire either on June 30 or December 31 don’t need to go through the hardship. The Supreme court had clearly stated in its order that employees need not keep approaching the court on the said issue.”
Neelam Tulaskar, a 63-year-old Thane resident who retired on June 30, 2017 as a leprosy technician under the public health department, said, “The MAT order means a lot for me and my family, but the execution of the same depends on the state government. No doubt, my pension would increase by a few hundred rupees and an additional one-time arrear of less than Rs 50,000, as per my pay scale, but I do not know how long I may have to wait for the same.” “It was only when this group of litigants came together to move their plea, I agreed to join, as I could not have afforded a lawyer otherwise,” said Neelam.
Chhaya Kshirsagar, 62, a resident of Pune who retired from the sales tax office in Pune on June 30, 2019, said, “I wrote numerous letters to our department requesting to implement the increment, but all my pleas had remained unanswered. I am happy that MAT passed its order in our favour, but I will request the government to pass a GR soon too.” Advocate Rajeshwar Panchal, who represented 26 of the 30 litigants before MAT, said, “Ideally speaking, the government should issue a notification so that similarly placed employees will get justice without being compelled to come to court.”
30
No of litigants who had approached MAT
Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest news!" Click here!
