Bombay High Court
Dinkarrao Amrutrao Patil And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 2 August, 2016
Bench: S.S. Shinde
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 5893 OF 2016
1. Dinkarrao s/o Amrutrao Patil,
Age : 63 years, Occu. Retired,
R/o 36, Pramodnagar,
Sector-2, Near S.B.I.,
Dhule - 424 002
2. Deepak s/o Laxman Phand,
Age : 52 years, Occu. Service,
R/o Plot No. 41, B, Vaibhav Nagar,
Near Ekdant Apartment,
Jamanagiri Road,
Dhule - 424 001 PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Principal Secretary,
Higher and Technical Education
Department, Mantralaya Annex,
Mumbai
2. The Director of Higher Education,
Maharashtra State,
Central Building,
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. Dr. P.R. Ghogrey
Science College, Deopur, Dhule,
District Dhule, through its
Principal RESPONDENTS
----
Mr. P.A. Pisal, Advocate for the petitioners
Mr. V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 to 3
Mr. D.R. Shelke, Advocate for respondent No. 4
----
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2016 00:46:33 :::
2 wp5893-2016
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 15th JULY, 2016
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 2nd AUGUST, 2016
JUDGMENT (PER : SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.) :
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With
consent of the learned counsel for the petitioners,
respondent no. 4 and the learned A.G.P., heard finally.
2.
Petitioner No. 1 was working as Associate
Professor whereas petitioner No. 2 is presently working
as Associate Professor with respondent No. 4 College.
Both the petitioners have claimed benefit of Note 6,
Appendix I of the Government Resolution dated 12 th
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 1 st 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 :-
3 wp5893-2016
(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
identical.
(iii) the senior teacher at the time
of promotion should have been drawing
equal or more pay than the junior.
(iv)
ig 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."
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits
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
4 wp5893-2016
for the petitioners further submits 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 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, he claims
that the petitioners should be granted the same relief
by allowing the present writ petition.
4. Respondent No. 3 filed affidavit-in-reply for
himself and on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to
oppose the claims of the petitioners.
5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 could not
controvert the contentions of the petitioners that
consequent upon implementation of the Sixth Pay
Commission recommendations, the persons who are junior
5 wp5893-2016
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 petition.
6. We have considered the facts of the present
petition, arguments of the learned counsel for the
petitioners and that of the learned Assistant 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 in the case of
Sudamrao Keshawrao Aher (supra) is fully applicable to
the facts of the present petition.
7. 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 Sixth Pay Commission with effect
from 1st January, 2006.
6 wp5893-2016
8. In the result, we pass the following order :-
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) We direct the respondents to step up the pay of
the petitioners to bring it at par with the pay
of their juniors, 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.
(iii) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
(iv) The parties are left to bear their own costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
[SANGITRAO S. PATIL] [S.S. SHINDE]
JUDGE JUDGE
npj/wp5893-2016
