JUDGMENT : S.S. SHINDE, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed with following substantive prayers: "(B) By issuing writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ, the order dated 03.05.2016 issued by respondent No.3, denying benefits of time bound promotion scheme to the Petitioners No.1 to 5, may kindly be quashed and set aside to the extent of petitioners, (C) By issuing writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ, the order dated 07.05.2013 issued by respondent No.3, denying benefits of time bound promotion scheme to the petitioner No.6 may kindly be quashed and set aside to the extent of petitioners; (D) By issuing writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ, respondent Nos.2 and 3 may kindly be directed to grant benefits of time bound promotion scheme to the petitioners on completion of period of 12 years after grant of earlier benefits of time bound promotion scheme." 3. It is the case of the Petitioners that they were appointed on 7th August, 1987, 5th October, 1987, 29th April, 1988, 17th February, 1989, 17th February, 1989 and on 14th November, 1986 respectively. After completion of twelve years service, the Petitioners were granted benefits of time bound promotion scheme in view of Government Resolution dated 8th June, 1995, issued by the General Administration Department, Government of Maharashtra. After completion of further twelve years, the Petitioners are entitled for benefit of second stage of time bound promotion scheme, since they have not been granted promotion to the higher post during said period. After completion of such period of twelve years, the Petitioners repeatedly requested Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to grant them benefits of time bound promotion scheme, however, they have not been granted the said benefit. By order dated 7th May, 2013 Petitioner No.6 and other similarly situated persons were denied benefit of time bound promotion scheme mainly on the ground that they were not having qualification of LSGD and they had not cleared MSCIT qualification. The said order was challenged by one of the employees before this High Court in Writ Petition No.5786 of 2013. By order dated 7th May, 2013 Petitioner No.6 and other similarly situated persons were denied benefit of time bound promotion scheme mainly on the ground that they were not having qualification of LSGD and they had not cleared MSCIT qualification. The said order was challenged by one of the employees before this High Court in Writ Petition No.5786 of 2013. By order dated 28th February, 2014 this Court allowed the said Writ Petition and directed Respondent No.2 Municipal Corporation to grant benefit of time bound promotion scheme to the petitioner therein. 4. The Petitioners further contended that relying upon the decision in said Writ Petition No.5786 of 2013, the Petitioners made several representations to the Respondents claiming benefits of time bound promotion scheme. In the light of decision rendered by this Court in the said Writ Petition No.5786 of 2013, directing grant of time bound promotion scheme to one of the similarly situated person, the Respondents ought to have considered prayer of the Petitioners for grant of similar benefit to them, however ignoring the entitlement of the Petitioners, so also verdict of this Court in an identical case, the Respondents have denied benefits of time bound scheme to the Petitioner Nos.1 to 5 vide order dated 3rd May, 2016, on the ground that the Petitioners were not possessing qualification of LSGD. It is contended that qualification of LSGD is not necessary qualification for the employees of Municipal Corporation and therefore the reason assigned by Respondent No.3 while denying claim of the Petitioners for time bound promotion scheme is unjust, illegal and unsustainable. Hence this Petition is filed by the Petitioners. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits that vide order dated 7th May, 2013 and 3rd May, 2016 the Respondents have denied the claim of the Petitioners for time bound promotion on the ground that they were not possessing qualification of LSGD and MSCIT. It is stated that the Confidential Reports of the Petitioners were not available. It is submitted that in the impugned order itself it was mentioned that the LSGD was not necessary qualification for the employees of the Respondent Municipal Corporation. The said qualification OF LSGD is not necessary for any post on the establishment of Respondent Corporation. It is stated that the Confidential Reports of the Petitioners were not available. It is submitted that in the impugned order itself it was mentioned that the LSGD was not necessary qualification for the employees of the Respondent Municipal Corporation. The said qualification OF LSGD is not necessary for any post on the establishment of Respondent Corporation. Laying down the condition of qualification of LSGD, subsequent to the appointments of the Petitioners and when they have rendered services for considerable period, is unreasonable and due to non fulfillment of such condition benefit of time bound promotion scheme after completion of 24 years service cannot be taken away. 6. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.2 and 3, invites our attention to the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of Respondent No.3 and submits that as per the Government Resolution dated 1st April, 2010 issued by the Finance Department, Government of Maharashtra, for getting benefits under the scheme qualification for the said post is necessary. It is submitted that after receipt of first benefit, for getting second benefit the said employee has to fulfill prescribed terms and conditions of the post for which he is claiming benefits. As per the Government Resolution, referred above, as the Petitioners did not fulfill terms and conditions, hence benefits are not awarded to them. It is submitted that as per the report submitted to departmental promotion selection committee dated 3rd May, 2016, it reveals that present Petitioners are not possessing Local Self Government Diploma (LSGD) course which is necessary as per Award No.51 of 1979. It is submitted that appointment of Petitioner Nos.1 to 5 is made as per said Award No.51 of 1979 on compassionate ground. 7. We have given careful consideration to the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, learned A.G.P. appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.2 and 3, With their able assistance, we have perused the grounds taken in the Petition, annexures thereto, the affidavit in reply and additional affidavit in reply filed on behalf of Respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the annexeres thereto. 8. At the outset it would be relevant to refer the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court (CORAM: R.M. BORDE AND N.W. SAMBRE, JJ.) in Writ Petition No.5786 of 2013 (Bhaskar s/o Amrut Ghodke vs. the State of Maharashtra and others), dated 28th February, 2014. 8. At the outset it would be relevant to refer the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court (CORAM: R.M. BORDE AND N.W. SAMBRE, JJ.) in Writ Petition No.5786 of 2013 (Bhaskar s/o Amrut Ghodke vs. the State of Maharashtra and others), dated 28th February, 2014. The Petitioner therein was appointed as a clerk with Respondent No.2 – Municipal Corporation, Ahmednagar on 21st April, 1986. On completion of twelve years service, in view of the Government policy pronounced by the State Government in its Resolution dated 8th June, 1995, issued by the General Administration Department, Government of Maharashtra, the Petitioner therein was granted promotional pay-scale. The Petitioner therein relied upon the Government Resolution dated 20th July, 2001, issued by the Finance Department, Government of Maharashtra and claimed further benefit as accruable to him in respect of second promotional payscale on completion of twelve years service from receiving the benefit of first twelve years service. In the said case the benefit of higher pay scale on completion of 24 years service on second time was refused to the Petitioner therein on the ground that he did not acquire the MSCIT qualification as prescribed in the Government Resolution dated 1st April, 2010 issued by the Finance Department, Government of Maharashtra. The Petitioner therein contended that in view of the Government Resolution dated 2nd September, 2003, on completion of 50 years of age the employee stands exempted from acquiring the said qualification of passing MSCIT. It appears that the stand was taken by the Respondents in the said Petition that such of those employees who completed 50 years of age on 2nd September, 2003 i.e. the date of issuance of Government Resolution, are exempted from acquiring computer proficiency certificate. The Division Bench of this Court considered the rival submissions and held that on the date of consideration of the proposal of the Petitioner for grant of second promotional benefits he was beyond 50 years of age and therefore he ought to have been granted exemption from acquiring computer proficiency qualification. The denial of the benefit of promotional pay scale to the petitioner on irrelevant consideration has put him to prejudice in terms of financial loss. In Para 8 of the Judgment, it is further observed that: “On application of the policy prescribed under the Government Resolution in respect of grant of exemption from acquiring computer proficiency qualification. The denial of the benefit of promotional pay scale to the petitioner on irrelevant consideration has put him to prejudice in terms of financial loss. In Para 8 of the Judgment, it is further observed that: “On application of the policy prescribed under the Government Resolution in respect of grant of exemption from acquiring computer proficiency qualification. The petitioner shall have to be deemed entitled for the acquisition of the benefits of assured promotional scheme provided under the Government Resolution dated 1st April, 2010. It has not been brought to our notice that the confidential reports of the petitioner are adverse or that on the basis of the scrutiny of the reports he is not entitled to claim benefits.” Accordingly, the Respondents therein were directed to extend the benefits of assured promotional scheme/ time bound promotional pay scale to the petitioner with effect from 21st April, 2010, the date on which the petitioner completed 12 years tenure after grant of the earlier benefits under the time bound promotional scheme. 9. Coming to the facts of the present case, the Petitioners have placed reliance upon the afore said Judgment and also Ahmednagar Municipal Corporation, Employment Condition Rules, 2008 (for short Rules of 2008) and in particular Rule 3(M) 2) to 4) of the said Rules. It would be appropriate to reproduce herein below the aforesaid provisions of Rule 3(M) of the Rules of 2008, which are as under: "HINDI” 10. The Respondents have not denied the assertion of the Petitioners that their cases are covered by the afore said provisions of the Rules of 2008. It is the stand of the Respondent Corporation that the staffing pattern of the Respondent Corporation has been sanctioned by the Government on 6th February, 2016 and now the LSGD qualification is not necessary and in view of the Government Resolution dated 14th June, 2016 and the staffing pattern rules, the benefit would be given to the Petitioners regarding the time bound promotion. The Respondents also tried to rely upon the newly introduced Rules titled as “Ahmednagar Municipal Corporation, Employment Condition Rules, 2008”. The counsel for the Petitioners is right in his submissions that those Rules cannot be made applicable in the case of the Petitioners and same would be applicable prospectively and not with retrospective effect. The Petitioners have been appointed during the period from 14th February, 1986 to 17th February, 1989 on various dates. The counsel for the Petitioners is right in his submissions that those Rules cannot be made applicable in the case of the Petitioners and same would be applicable prospectively and not with retrospective effect. The Petitioners have been appointed during the period from 14th February, 1986 to 17th February, 1989 on various dates. If those dates are taken into consideration, it cannot be disputed that by this time the Petitioners have completed more than 25 years of service. It is a matter of record that some of the Petitioners are already retired from the services. 11. In the light of discussion herein above, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, and keeping in view the length of service rendered by the Petitioners and also other documents placed on record, we are inclined to allow this Petition. Hence we pass following order: ORDER (I) The impugned orders dated 7th May, 2013 and 3rd May, 2016 passed by the Respondent Corporation denying the benefits of the assured promotional scheme and not granting promotional pay scale to the Petitioners, are quashed and set aside. (II) The Respondents shall extend the benefits of assured promotional scheme/ time bound promotional pay scale to Petitioner Nos.1 to 6 from the date on which each of the Petitioner completed 12 years tenure after grant of the earlier benefits under the time bound promotional scheme. (III) The Respondents shall take appropriate decision as directed by us before 31st May, 2018 and shall also pay all the Petitioners the arrears as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from such decision. (IV) The Rule is made absolute on above terms. The Writ Petition stands disposed of, accordingly.