Bombay High Court
Dr.Maroti Shamraoji Wane & Anr vs The State Of Mah.Thr.Medical ... on 25 April, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
1 wp2261-03
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
Writ Petition No.2261 of 2003
1. Dr. Maroti s/o Shamraoji Wane,
aged about 49 years, Resident of near
Samay Medical Bhivapur Ward, Chandrapur.
2. Dr. Parmanand s/o Tulsiram Dudhe,
aged about 40 years, Resident of S-2 Gokul
Apartments, Behind Chanda Diesels,
Bapat Nagar, Nagpur Road, Chandrapur. ... ... Petitioners.
-Versus -
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary, Medical Education
and Drugs Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2. The Director of Ayurveda,
Maharashtra State, Khanna Construction Houses,
II nd Floor, Dr. Thandani Marg,
Worli, Mumbai - 18.
3. The Nagpur University, Nagpur
through its Registrar, Nagpur.
4. The Bharatiya Gramin Shikshan Prasarak
Mandal, Chandrapur, through its Secretary
Shri M.P. Kalaskar.
5. The Samitra Mandal, Chandrapur through
its Secretary, Bagla Nagar, Babupeth,
Chandrapur.
6. The Puushottamdas Bagla Homeopathic
Medical College & Hospital through its
Principal, Baglanagar, Babupeth,
Chandrapur.
7. The Maharashtra University of Health
Sciences, through it Registrar,
Gangapur Road, "Anandwalli" Nashik.... ... Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 23:44:15 :::
2 wp2261-03
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. R.A. Haq, counsel for petitioner.
Mr. Kale, AGP for respondents - State.
Mr. Dharaskar, counsel for respondent no.4.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ.
DATE : 25th April, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT ( Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.)
Matter is being heard since long.
2. Learned counsel Shri Dharaskar appearing for respondent no.4
informs that college of respondent no. 4 has been transferred to respondent
no. 2 with all liabilities. Advocate for petitioner does not dispute this. Prayer
in the petition is to direct respondents to apply pay scale prescribed for the
teaching staff working in Ayurvedic Colleges in the State of Maharashtra
from the date of their initial appointments. Petitioners have been appointed
some time in the year 1988 and petitioner no.1 has already reached age of
superannuation.
3. After hearing receptive counsel, this court has passed following
orders on 22.11.2006, 8.12.2006, 23.3.2007 and 6.6.2007.
Order dtd. 22.11.2006
"A.G.P. is directed to take instructions as to
when the Government intends to take decision fixing the
pay scale of the petitioners, since the Central Government
3 wp2261-03
has already forwarded it to the Government of
Maharashtra ( Medical Education and Drugs Department),
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
S.O. one week."
Order dated 8.12.2006
"Mr. Kankale, leaned A.G.P. has filed pursis
dated 6.12.2006 and annexed letter dated 02.12.2006
received by him from the State Government. The pursis is
taken on record.
Pursuant to the request made in the pursis,
three months time is granted. We hope that within this
three months period, the State Government shall take
appropriate decision in the matter.
S.O. three months.
Copy of this order be given to the A.G.P. to act
upon.
Order dated 23.3.2007.
"Learned AGP points out that on 26th March,
2007, the State Government has written to Health
University and has directed issuance of appropriate orders
for extending benefits of Vth Pay revision to the
employees working in private unaided Homeopathy
Colleges. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners as also
learned counsel appearing for Maharashtra University of
Health Sciences seek one week's time to take instructions
in the matter.
Place the matter after one week.
Order dated 6.6.2007
"Heard Mr. Haq, Adv. For the petitioners and
Mr. Deopujari, A.G.P. for the Respondent nos. 1 and 2.
In pursuance of our earlier order dt. 23.3.2007,
the respondent no. 7- The Maharashtra University of
Health Sciences has filed an affidavit stating that mere
letter dt. 22.3.2007 issued by the State Government is not
sufficient and Government has to issue suitable
Government Resolution so as to make it binding on the
4 wp2261-03
University and other affiliated colleges. Copy of said
affidavit is shown to us by the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners as no such affidavit is filed on record.
Learned A.G.P. also states that he has not received any
such affidavit and seeks time of one week to obtain
further appropriate instructions in the matter.
During hearing it is transpired that date
22.3.2007 has been erroneously mentioned as 26.3.2007
in our order dt. 23.3.2007. Said date is accordingly
corrected to read as 22.3.2007.
Place the matter after one week."
4. When the matter came up for hearing on 15.4.2016, we have
passed following order.
" The matter is part heard. Today Adv. Haq
appearing for petitioners has invited our attention to
statement in reply affidavit to show that State
Government has way back in 2006 asked Health
University to take decision about extending benefit of
wage revision itself as per norms of Central Homeopathy
Council. He also points out that there are no Government
run Homeopathic Colleges in State of Maharashtra. To
find out how admissions to these Colleges are made and
qualifications for recruitment of teaching staff therein, he
is seeking some time.
The leaned Assistant Government Pleader is
opposing the adjournment.
The petition is pending before this Court since
2003 and it appears that appointments of petitioners are
approved by the University. In this situation, we grant
request as made by Adv. Haq and keep matter on
22.4.2016."
5. It is admitted position that State Government is not running any
Government Homeopathy College and there is no aided Homeopathy
College in State of Maharashtra. Petitioners are working in unaided colleges.
5 wp2261-03
They demand parity in employment.
6. Material on record is inadequate inasmuch as comparable service
conditions with relevant data are not made available. Advocate Haq has
informed that he has asked petitioners to collect data under Right to
Information Act and that data is partly received and some more information
is awaited.
7. It is not in dispute that the college in which petitioners work have
been formed under Nagpur University Act, 1974 which has been thereafter
replaced by Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 and after distinction between
professional colleges and colleges imparting professional education, the
colleges of petitioners have been transferred to Health University.
Accordingly, provisions of Maharashtra Universities of Health Sciences Act,
1998 is applicable to their colleges.
8. As the colleges were run from day one on non-grant basis,
various disputed questions arise. After hearing Shri Haq, Shri Dharaskar and
learned AGP Shri Kale, we find that the terms and conditions on which
Nagpur University initially granted permission and affiliation to those
colleges will play important role. Similarly, State Government while granting
permission may have imposed certain conditions. Perusal of impact of those
terms and conditions will also be essential.
6 wp2261-03
9. During hearing our attention has been invited to a document
placed on record along with reply by the respondent no.7. As per that
document, neither the UGC nor the governments were paying any attention
to service conditions of teaching staff in Homeopathy and therefore Executive
Committee on 28th July, 1995 while voicing its grievance pointed out that
Homeopathy needs to be treated on same line as any modern medicine
system and called upon the Central/State/U.T. Governments to remove
disparity. It appears from a communication dated 4.11.2006 sent by Deputy
Director Homeopathy, Director of Aayurvdic to Registrar, Maharashtra
University of Health Sciences, Nashik that neither UGC nor CCH
recommended pay scales have been implemented in case of Homeopathy
teachers by Homeopathy Colleges or Universities except Shivaji University,
Kolhapur.
10. The colleges i.e. respondent nos. 4,5 & 6 before this court are not
receiving any grant-in-aid from State Government. In this situation, question
is how a writ can be issued to them in the matter. Petitioners have to point
out terms and conditions on which recommendations or affiliation or
permission has been granted to these colleges. These documents are not
available today on record. Similarly, when Shivaji University extended pay
scales, details of such colleges in which it was implemented and other
7 wp2261-03
relevant data like qualifications etc. of staff is not available on record.
11. Matter is being heard finally and if that data comes on record
today, it will be apparent that for the first time after accepting it on record,
time will be required to be given to respondents to file their reply affidavits.
12. During arguments, advocate Haq has submitted that this Court
has directed parity in the matters of gratuity, pension etc. He invited our
attention to judgment delivered in W.P. No. 577/2011 dated 10th June, 2013.
Even if we have to invoke and apply Article 14 of Constitution of India, we
find data on record insufficient.
13. However, grievance made by petitioners cannot be said to be
frivolous. Having earned some amount on ad-hoc basis and having put in
service much in excess of qualifying service, if their grievance is accepted,
they may become entitled to various other benefits.
14. In this situation, we grant petitioners leave to make appropriate
representation pointing out all these facts to State Government and also to
the University. If petitioners have applied for grant of certain information to
any other authority under State Government, that authority shall
immediately make available the relevant data to them.
15. If petitioners make such representation within a period of eight
weeks from today, the State Government and respondent no. 7 Health
8 wp2261-03
University shall consider it as per law within next eight weeks. If necessary,
opportunity of hearing shall be extended to petitioners or to their
representatives.
With these directions, and keeping all rival contentions open, we
dispose of writ petition. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Hirekhan
