wp5252.16.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.5252/2016
PETITIONER: Dr. Lalitmohan Jainarayan Paliwal,
Aged 57 years, Occ : Professor
R/o 104, Himalaya Valley, Hindustan
Colony, Amravati Road, Nagpur - 33.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS: 1. State of Maharashtra through its Secretary,
Department of Higher and Technical Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400032.
2. The Director of Higher Education, State of
Maharashtra, Central Building, Pune -1.
3. The Joint Director of Higher Education,
State of Maharashtra, Nagpur Division,
Nagpur.
4. Hislop College, Through its Principal
Temple Road, Civil Lines, Nagpur - 01.
5. Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur
University Campus, Through its Controller
Amravati Road, Nagpur - 33.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Rohan Chandurkar, Advocate for petitioner
Mrs. A.R. Taiwade, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3
Shri S.S. Sanyal, Advocate for respondent no.4
Shri A.S. Agrawal, Adv. h/f Shri P.B. Patil, Adv. for respondent no.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, AND
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 13.04.2017 ::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2017 00:02:15 ::: wp5252.16.odt 2
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent nos.1 to 3 to step up the basic pay band of the petitioner to Rs.57,860/- as on 01.9.2008 and to revise the pay accordingly within a time frame.
Shri Chandurkar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the case of the petitioner stands fully covered by the judgment of the Aurangabad Bench of this Court dated 21.11.2013 in Writ Petition Nos.10283/2012 and 888/2013. It is stated that the State had challenged the said judgment before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but the Special Leave Petition was dismissed.
Mrs. Taiwade, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent nos.1 to 3 does not dispute the factual statements made on behalf of the petitioner. It is stated after perusal of the writ petition and the aforesaid judgment that the case of the petitioner appears to have been covered by the judgment.
In view of the aforesaid, we partly allow the writ petition. The respondent nos.1 to 3 are directed to take necessary steps to step up the pay of the petitioner so as to bring him at par with his juniors so that ::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2017 00:02:15 ::: wp5252.16.odt 3 he should not be discriminated only because the junior teachers had acquired Ph.D. Degree while the recommendations of the 6 th Pay Commission were in force. In terms of the judgment dated 21.11.2013 in Writ Petition Nos.10283/2012 and 888/2013, we direct the respondent nos.1 to 3 to refix the pay of the petitioner and pay the arrears to the petitioner within a period of four months.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2017 00:02:15 :::