Judgment wp4395.16
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 4395 OF 2016.
Vilas s/o Krishnaji Ramteke,
Aged 46 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of 638,
Buddha Nagar, Nagpur - 17. ....PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary, Department of
Higher and Technical Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
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. Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur
University, Nagpur through its
Registrar, Civil Lines, Nagpur.
5. The University Grants Commission,
New Delhi, through its Member Secretary,
Bahadur Shah Jafar Marg,
New Delhi - 110002. ....RESPONDENTS
.
-----------------------------------
Mr. B.G. Kulkarni, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. P.S. Tembhare, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Mr. A. Agrawal, Advocate for Respondent No.5.
------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/08/2017 02:03:43 :::
Judgment wp4395.16
2
CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI
AND ROHIT B. DEO, JJ.
DATED : AUGUST 04, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT. (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J) Heard Shri B.G. Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri P.S. Tembhare, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Shri A. Agrawal, learned Counsel for respondent no.5. None appears for respondent no.4 though served. Considering the controversy involved in the matter and with consent of the learned counsel present for the parties, Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal by issuing Rule, making the same returnable forthwith.
2. Petitioner claims pay-scale of Rs. 12,000 - 18,300 on his appointment as Deputy Registrar in terms of order of appointment dated 31.12.2002, and a corresponding pay-scale in pay band of Rs. 37,400 - 67,000 with Grade pay of Rs. 9000/- w.e.f. 01.01.2006.
3. Employer of petitioner i.e. respondent no.4 has not filed any reply ::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/08/2017 02:03:43 ::: Judgment wp4395.16 3 opposing the petition. Shri Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.5 is supporting case of the petitioner.
4. Shri Tembhare, learned A.G.P. appearing for respondent nos. 1 to 3 points out that in advertisement published on 17.02.2001, expressly pay- scale of Rs. 10,650 - 15,850 was mentioned and petitioner accepted the same. Grievance is made for the first time by filing this petition on 22.07.2016. Hence, the challenge is stale. He further contends that as petitioner has accepted that pay scale and corresponding pay scale from 01.02.2006, he is estopped from filing a petition of present nature.
5. Shri Kulkarni, learned counsel for petitioner submits that respondent no.4 Employer has vide communication dated 01.07.2011 and other similar communications before that has recommended the required pay-scale for petitioner.
6. After hearing the respective counsel, we find that respondent no.5 University Grants Commission itself has on 27.09.2013 pointed out error committed by giving wrong pay-scale to petitioner. It then also sought explanation as to why the procedure prescribed by it was not followed, and a different selection avenue with dual structure of pay for the post of Assistant ::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/08/2017 02:03:43 ::: Judgment wp4395.16 4 Registrar and Deputy Register is being adopted.
7. Learned A.G.P. has further pointed out that the petitioner has approached this Court in Writ Petition No.741/2014, and he could have very well made this grievance at that juncture.
8. The challenge in Writ Petition No. 741/2014 was to a communication dated 24.01.2014, holding appointment of petitioner as Controller of Examination, invalid. At that juncture, and in that petition there was no grievance in relation to wrong fixation or then wrong application of pay-scale. But, then facts show that the petitioner was very much aware of wrong pay scale extended to him, when he approached this Court. He was making correspondence and was aware of the stand of University Grants Commission also. Hence, he could have made a grievance in relation to that pay scale in Writ Petition No.741/2014.
9. In reply affidavit filed before this Court, respondent no.3 has pointed out that in that Writ Petition, there was a prayer and a direction was sought to the State Government to approve the pay fixation of petitioner as Controller of Examination as per order of appointment dated 11.09.2012. ::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/08/2017 02:03:43 :::
Judgment wp4395.16 5
10. In this situation, we find substance in contention of learned A.G.P. that the prayer is stale.
11. However, the fact that the pay scale as sought for by the petitioner is applicable to the post, cannot be disputed. In this situation, the petitioner cannot be given any arrears, however, benefit of fixation in pay scale of pay- band of Rs. 37,400 - 67,000 with grade pay of Rs. 9000 and pay scale of Rs.12,000 - 18,300 from the date of his appointment and from 01.01.2006 notionally can be given to him. Accordingly, his salary receivable by him for the month of August, 2017 shall be worked out, and he shall be given revised and enhanced salary from 01.08.2017 onwards. However, the benefit of notional fixation shall not result in payment of any arrears to him.
12. This exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from today. In view of above directions and observations, Writ Petition is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rgd.
::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/08/2017 02:03:43 :::