Onkar Hiraman Mahajan vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 4424 Bom

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                            BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            WRIT PETITION NO. 7178 OF 2016
     




                                                                            
    Onkar Hiraman Mahajan,
    Age : 58 years, Occu. Service, 




                                                    
    R/o : Krupa Drushti,
    25, Shradha Colony, Jalgaon, 
    Tq. and Dist. Jalgaon                                              PETITIONER




                                                   
           VERSUS

    1.     The State of Maharashtra,
           Through its Principal Secretary,
           Higher and Technical Education




                                           
           Department, Mantralaya,
           Mumbai                 
    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.     KCE Society's Moolji Jaitha College,
           Jalgaon, Tq. and Dist.Jalgaon,





           Through its Principal                                       RESPONDENTS

                              ----
    Mr. V.B. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner
    Mr. A.V. Deshmukh, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 to 3





    None for respondent no. 4 though served
                              ----

                                        CORAM :  S.S. SHINDE AND
                                                 SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.

                    JUDGMENT RESERVED   ON : 2nd AUGUST, 2016
                    JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 4th AUGUST, 2016 




         ::: Uploaded on - 04/08/2016               ::: Downloaded on - 05/08/2016 00:42:51 :::
                                                2                            wp7178-2016

    JUDGMENT (PER : SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.) :

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With

consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned A.G.P., heard finally.

2. Petitioner is working as Associate Professor

with respondent No. 4 College. The petitioner has

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

3 wp7178-2016

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."

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the provisions of Note No. 6 are squarely

applicable to the case of the petitioner. The juniors

of the petitioner are getting more pay than that of the

petitioner 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 petitioner to make

him equivalent to the pay of his juniors and the

petitioner should be paid arrears of pay with interest

at the rate of Rs.18% per annum. The learned counsel

for the petitioner 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

4 wp7178-2016

petitioner have been given benefit of Note 6 of the

Government Resolution dated 12th August, 2009, for

stepping up of their pay with his 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 petitioner 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

opposed the claims of the petitioner. Respondent no. 4

was duly served with the notice of the writ petition,

but none appeared for him.

5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader

appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 could not

controvert the contentions of the petitioner that

consequent upon implementation of the Sixth Pay

Commission recommendations, the persons who are junior

to the petitioner are getting more pay than that of the

petitioner and that the petitioner is entitled to get

his respective pay stepped up. He further could not

5 wp7178-2016

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

petitioner 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 petitioner for

stepping up of his respective pay to bring him at par

with the pay of his juniors fixed as per the

recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission with effect

from 1st January, 2006.

8. In the result, we pass the following order :-

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

                                          6                             wp7178-2016

    (ii)          We direct the respondents to step up the pay of

the petitioner to bring it at par with the pay

of his juniors, compute the amount payable to

the petitioner 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.

           [SANGITRAO S. PATIL]                     [S.S. SHINDE]
                   JUDGE                                JUDGE





    npj/wp7178-2016