Bombay High Court
Sarjerao Madhavrao Bhamare And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 7 April, 2016
Bench: S.S. Shinde
(1) W.P. No. 812 of 2016 & Group
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.
Writ Petition No. 812 of 2016
District : Dhule
1. Sarjerao s/o. Madhavrao Bhamare,
Age : 65 years,
Occupation : Retired,
R/o. 104/2, Shree Krupa
Suyog Nagar,
Wadibhokar Road, Deopur,
Dhule - 424 002.
2. Murlidhar s/o. Dinkar Patil,
Age : 65 years,
Occupation : Retired,
R/o. 93, Adarsh Colony,
Near Maruti Mandir, Deopur,
Dhule - 424 002.
3. Hiralal s/o. Zinga Patil,
Age : 63 years,
Occupation : Retired,
R/o. 38, Madhur Sadan
Rajendra Nagar, Deopur,
Dhule.
4. Vijay s/o. Baburao Salunkhe,
Age : 62 years,
Occupation : Retired,
R/o. 7, Chatrapati Shivaji
Hsg. Soc., Tulasiramnagar,
Deopur, Dhule - 424 002.
5. Dilip s/o. Pandit Patil,
Age : 64 years,
Occupation : Retired,
R/o. 10B, Rajendranagar,
Near Kirti Apartment,
Gondur Road, Deopur,
Dhule.
::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:23:42 :::
(2) W.P. No. 812 of 2016 & Group
6. Madhukar s/o. Mukundrao Pawar,
Age : 62 years,
Occupation : Service,
R/o. 105, Shaskiy Vasahat,
Deopur, Dhule - 424 002.
7. Hemchandra s/o. Kanhaiyalal
Mahajan,
Age : 59 years,
Occupation : Service,
R/o. 33, Gulmohar Colony,
Gondur Road, Deopur, Dhule.
8. Mrs. Sandhya Sanjay Patil,
Age : 50 years,
Occupation : Service,
R/o. 23, Aai, Tryambak Nagar,
Deopur, Dhule - 424 002.
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Principal Secretary,
Higher & Technical Education
Department, Mantralaya Annex,
Mumbai - 32.
2. The Director of Higher Education,
Maharashtra State,
Central Building, Pune,
District : Pune.
3. The Joint Director of Higher
Education,
1st Floor,
Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran
Building, Jalgaon,
District : Jalgaon.
4. S.S.V.P.'s L.K. P.R. Ghogrey
Science College, Deopur,
Dhule, District : Dhule,
Through its Principal. .. Respondents.
::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:23:42 :::
(3) W.P. No. 812 of 2016 & Group
...........
Mr. P.A. Pisal, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. V.S. Badakh, Asst. Government Pleader, for
respondent nos.1 to 3.
Mr. D.R. Shelke, Advocate, for respondent no.4.
...........
With
Writ Petition No. 961 of 2016
District : Ahmednagar
Dr. Dattatraya s/o. Manohar Gujarathi,
Age : 56 years,
Occupation : Service,
R/o. 3, Orange Corner,
College Road, Sangamner,
District : Ahmednagar 422 605. .. Petitioner.
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Principal Secretary,
Higher & Technical Education
Department, Mantralaya Annex,
Mumbai - 32.
2. The Director of Higher Education,
Maharashtra State,
Central Building, Pune,
District : Pune.
3. The Joint Director of Higher
Education,
Department of Higher Education,
17, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Pune,
District : Pune.
4. Sangamner Nagarpalika Arts,
D.J. Malpani Commerce &
::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:23:42 :::
(4) W.P. No. 812 of 2016 & Group
B.N. Sarada Science College,
Sangamner, Dist. : Ahmednagar,
Through its Principal. .. Respondents.
...........
Mr. P.A. Pisal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. V.S. Badakh, Asst. Government Pleader, for
respondent nos.1 to 3.
Respondent no.4 served (Absent).
...........
With
Writ Petition No. 962 of 2016
District : Ahmednagar
1. Baban s/o. Raghunath Adik,
Age : 61 years,
Occupation : Service,
R/o. "Shashideep", Ward No.1,
A/P/T Shrirampur,
Dist. Ahmednagar - 413709.
2. Gorakh s/o. Haribhau Barhate,
Age : 58 years,
Occupation : Service,
R/o. Opp. Dr. Bhalgat Hospital,
District Bank Colony,
Block No.1, Ward No.7,
Shrirampur, Tal. : Shrirampur,
District : Ahmednagar - 413 709.
3. Shirish s/o. Nana Gawali,
Age : 55 years,
Occupation : Service,
R/o. Near Patel High School,
Purnwadnagar, Ward No.7,
Shrirampur, Tal. : Shrirampur,
Dist. Ahmednagar - 413 709. .. Petitioners.
::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:23:42 :::
(5) W.P. No. 812 of 2016 & Group
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Principal Secretary,
Higher & Technical Education
Department, Mantralaya Annex,
Mumbai - 32.
2. The Director of Higher Education,
Maharashtra State,
Central Building, Pune,
District : Pune.
3. The Joint Director of Higher
Education,
Department of Higher Education,
17, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Pune,
District : Pune.
4. C.D. Jain College of Commerce,
Shrirampur, Tal. : Shrirampur,
Dist. : Ahmednagar - 413 709,
Through its Principal. .. Respondents.
...........
Mr. P.A. Pisal, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. V.S. Badakh, Asst. Government Pleader, for
respondent nos.1 to 3.
Mr. V.D. Sapkal, Advocate, for respondent no.4.
...........
With
Writ Petition No. 979 of 2016
District : Ahmednagar
1. Suhas s/o. Dhondiba Avhad,
Age : 51 years,
Occupation : Service,
::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:23:42 :::
(6) W.P. No. 812 of 2016 & Group
R/o. "Dnyandeep", Goldencity,
Akole Bypass Road, Sangamner,
Dist. : Ahmednagar.
2. Mohan s/o. Babanrao Waman,
Age : 51 years,
Occupation : Service,
R/o. Ratangad Bungalow,
Opp. Sangamner College,
Sangamner,
District : Ahmednagar.
3. Kamal d/o. Rangnath Dhakane,
Age : 50 years,
Occupation : Service,
R/o. "Dnyandeep", Goldencity,
Akole Bypass Road, Sangamner,
District : Ahmednagar.
4. Shobha d/o. Sakharam Borhade,
Age : 50 years,
Occupation : Service,
R/o. "Nilrohit", Saishradhanagar,
Behind 132 KV, Sangamner,
Dist. : Ahmednagar.
5. Lata w/o. Keshav Deshmukh,
Age : 59 years,
Occupation : Service,
R/o. Principal Bungalow,
Sangamner College, Sangamner,
Dist. : Ahmednagar. .. Petitioners.
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Principal Secretary,
Higher & Technical Education
Department, Mantralaya Annex,
Mumbai - 32.
2. The Director of Higher Education,
Maharashtra State,
Central Building, Pune,
District : Pune.
::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:23:42 :::
(7) W.P. No. 812 of 2016 & Group
3. The Joint Director of Higher
Education,
Department of Higher Education,
17, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Pune,
District : Pune.
4. Sahakar Maharshi Bhausaheb Santuji
Thorat College of Arts, Science
& Commerce, Sangamner,
Dist. : Ahmednagar,
Through its Principal. .. Respondents.
...........
Mr. P.A. Pisal, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. V.S. Badakh, Asst. Government Pleader, for
respondent nos.1 to 3.
Respondent no.4 served (Absent).
...........
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE &
SANGITRAO S.PATIL, JJ.
Date of reserving
the judgment : 29th March 2016
Date of pronouncing
the judgment : 7th April 2016
JUDGMENT (Per Sangitrao S. Patil, J.):
1. Common questions of law and facts are
involved in the present petitions. Hence they are
being decided by this common judgment.
(8) W.P. No. 812 of 2016 & Group
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By
consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, heard
finally.
3. Petitioner nos.1 to 5 in W.P. No. 812/2016
(since retired) were working as the Associate
Professors while rest of the petitioners are
presently working as Associate Professors with the
respondent - Colleges. They have claimed benefit of
Note 6, Appendix I of the Government Resolution dated
12th August 2009, which reads as under :-
" Note 6 - In case where a senior teacher
promoted to a higher post before the 1st day of
January 2006 draws less pay in the revised pay
structure than his junior who is promoted to the
higher post on or after the 1st day of January
2006, the pay in the pay band of such senior
teacher should be stepped up to an amount equal
to the pay in pay band as fixed for his junior
in that higher post. The stepping up should be
done with effect from the date of promotion of
the junior teacher subject to the fulfillment of
the following conditions :-
(i) both the junior and the senior teacher
should belong to the same cadre and the
posts in which they have been promoted
should be identical in the same cadre.
(ii) the pre-revised scale of pay and
revised Pay Band and Academic Grade Pay of
the lower and higher posts in which they
are entitled to draw pay should be
(9) W.P. No. 812 of 2016 & Group
identical.
(iii) the senior teacher at the time of
promotion should have been drawing equal or
more pay than the junior.
(iv) the anomaly should be directly as a
result of the application of the provision
of these rules or any other rules or order
regulating pay fixation on such promotion
in the revised pay structure. "
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners
submit that the provisions of Note No.6 are squarely
applicable to the cases of the petitioners. The
juniors of the petitioners are getting more pay than
that of the petitioners only because the juniors
obtained Ph.D. degrees after 1st January 2006. This
anomaly has to be removed by stepping up the pay of
the petitioners to make them equivalent to the pay of
their juniors and the petitioners should be paid
arrears of pay with interest at the rate of Rs. 18 %
per annum. The learned Counsel for the petitioners
further submit that the similar issue has been
decided by the Division Bench of this Court in the
case of Sudamrao Keshawrao Aher & others Vs. The State of
Maharashtra & others, 2014(1) ALL MR 697 and the persons
similarly situated with the present petitioners have
been given benefit of Note 6 of the Government
Resolution dated 12th August 2009, for stepping up of
their pay with their juniors. The said judgment has
been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
(10) W.P. No. 812 of 2016 & Group
Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.15053-
15056/2015 vide order dated 17-11-2015. As such, the
said issue is no more res integra. Therefore, they
claim that the petitioners should be granted the same
relief by allowing the Writ Petitions.
5. Respondent no.3 filed affidavit in reply in
W.P. No. 812 of 2016 for himself and on behalf of
respondent nos.1 and 2 to oppose the claims of the
petitioners.
6.
The learned Asst. Government Pleader
appearing for respondent nos.1 to 3 could not
controvert the contentions of the petitioners that
consequent upon implementation of the VI Pay
Commission recommendations, the persons who are
junior to the petitioners are getting more pay than
that of the petitioners and that the petitioners are
entitled to get their respective pay stepped up. He
further could not show that the judgment in the case
of Sudamrao Keshawrao Aher (supra) is not applicable to
the facts of the present petitions.
7. We considered the facts of the present
petitions, arguments of the learned Counsel for the
petitioners and that of the learned Asst. Government
Pleader, the documents produced on record and the
judgment in the case of Sudamrao Keshawrao Aher
(supra). We are satisfied that the ratio laid down
(11) W.P. No. 812 of 2016 & Group
in the case of Sudamrao Keshawrao Aher (supra) is fully
applicable to the facts of the present petitions.
8. In the above circumstances, we do not find
any impediment in accepting the claim of the
petitioners for stepping up of their respective pay
to bring them at par with the pay of their juniors
fixed as per the recommendations of the VI Pay
Commission with effect from 1st January 2006.
9. In the result, the Petitions are allowed.
We direct the respondents to compute the amount
payable to the petitioners towards pay / pension in
accordance with the judgment and order passed by this
Court in the case of Sudamrao Keshawrao Aher & others
Vs. The State of Maharashtra & others (supra) and
release the said amount to them, as expeditiously as
possible and preferably within a period of six months
from today.
10. Rule is accordingly made absolute in the
aforesaid terms. However, parties are left to bear
their own costs.
(SANGITRAO S. PATIL) (S.S. SHINDE)
JUDGE JUDGE
...........
puranik / WP812.16etc
