Yashwant Vasudeo Natu And Ors. vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors.
2004 Latest Caselaw 580 Bom

JUDGMENT

V.G. Palshikar, J.

1. By this petition, the petitioner claims revision of his pay to the scale of Rs. 700 to 1600 with effect from 6-11-1997 on the ground that similar scale revision was granted to other similarly situated and therefore denial of the same to the petitioner amounts to false under Article 14.

2. The Government of Maharashtra changed the pattern of secondary education in the academic year 1975-76 to 10 + 2 + 3, thereby reducing the collegerial education period by one year. This resulted in several teachers being rendered surplus.

3. On 15th May, 2000 therefore a Resolution was issued to consider the absorption of these people and protection of pay given to them after such absorption. By this Resolution, the surplus teachers were absorbed in Government services after they were divided into five categories. There is no dispute about the categorisation or absorption. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner was duly categorised and this Resolution provided that where there is grant of protection of surplus, deemed revision of scale may be payable but no arrears are liable to be paid.

4. The contention of the petitioner is that the pay revision in the scale of Rs. 700 to 1600 has been granted to other categories of teachers who were rendered surplus by conducting the pattern of education in the year 1976 and he therefore is entitled to similar pay.

5. We are unable to accept this contention for the simple reason that the categorisation is made on reasonable particulars and has direct relationship with the cause for which the classification is made, denial of the revised scale of Rs. 700 to 1600 is not to any individual but to a category. It is not the case of the petitioner that some of the category in which he is situated are granted this scale but is denied only to him. In our opinion, after categorisation is done by the Resolution of 2000 grant of revision with all consequential benefits to one category and denial to another cannot be said to be arbitrary and therefore violation of Article 14, whereas the categorisation is made on the basis of qualification, length of service need of employment and necessity of absorption. That being the case the petition by the petitioner for grant of revised scale is able to be rejected. In the result the petition fails and it is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.