Bombay High Court
Suresh Shankarrao Shinde vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 22 December, 2016
Bench: R.M. Borde
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 8514 OF 2016
Prof. Suresh s/o Shankarrao Shinde,
Age : 55 years, Occu. Service as
Professor in Physics at A.S.C.
College, Naldurg, Tal. Tuljapur,
District Osmanabad PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Principal Secretary,
Higher and Technical Education
Department, Mantralaya Annex,
Mumbai - 32
2. The Director of Higher Education,
Maharashtra State,
Central Building, Pune
3. The Joint Director of Higher Education
Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad RESPONDENTS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 8515 OF 2016
1. Dr. Jaiwant s/o Saidaji Diggikar,
Age : 52 years, Occu. Service,
S.C.S. College, Omerga,
Tal. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad
2. Dr. Vilas s/o Sandipan Ingle,
Age : 50 years, Occu. Service,
S.C.S. College, Omerga,
Tal. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad
::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2016 01:12:43 :::
2 wp8514-8515-2016
3. Dr. Nitin s/o Murlidhar More,
Age : 50 years, Occu. Service,
S.C.S. College, Omerga,
Tal. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad
4. Dr. Ghanshyam s/o Harishchandra Jadhav,
Age : 52 years, Occu. Service as
Principal, S.C.S. College, Omerga,
Tal. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad
5. Dr. Praveen s/o Shahuraj Mane,
Age : 50 years, Occu. Service,
S.C.S. College, Omerga,
Tal. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1.
The State of Maharashtra,
through its Principal Secretary,
Higher and Technical Education
Department, Mantralaya Annex,
Mumbai - 32
2. The Director of Higher Education,
Maharashtra State,
Central Building, Pune
3. The Joint Director of Higher Education
Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad RESPONDENTS
----
Mr. S.S. Thombre, Advocate for the Petitioners
in both Writ Petitions
Mr. M.M. Nerlikar, A.G.P. for the respondent/State
----
CORAM : R.M. BORDE AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 22nd December, 2016
3 wp8514-8515-2016
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : R.M. BORDE, J.) :
Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the
consent of the parties, petitions are taken up for final
hearing and disposal at admission stage.
3. The facts giving rise to the instant petitions
are identical to the facts of the matter decided by
Division Bench of this Court on 21st November, 2013 i.e.
Writ Petition No. 10283 of 2012 and other companion
matters. In paragraph No. 15 of the Judgment, the
Division Bench has observed thus:
" 15. In the present matter, according
to us, the incentives while implementing
6th Pay Commission for Ph.D. cannot be so
given so as to give a junior teacher more
pay than the senior who is otherwise
equally qualified. Rather he has more
experience and is senior even in the
acquisition of the Ph.D. Degree. All
things given to the same at a given point
of time, junior teacher could not be
getting more salary than the senior only
because the junior has just acquired the
4 wp8514-8515-2016
Ph.D. Degree. The Constitution has goal
under Article 39(d) that there should be
equal pay for equal work. If the
arguments as raised on behalf of the
Respondents are accepted, the same would
amount to discriminating to teachers only
on the basis of junior teacher having
acquired Ph.D. Degree recently under new
Pay Commission. This would be violative
of the principles as enunciated in
Article 16 of the Constitution and such
position cannot be allowed to be
maintained. It is different when one
person is having higher qualifications.
However, it would be discriminatory when
both are having similar qualifications
and a person not only senior in service
but also equally qualified is so
discriminated, so as to be put in
disadvantageous position as it was a
fault to have acquired Ph.D. Degree
earlier. It is not a case of keeping the
incentive separate and not part of pay.
If pay fixation of petitioner No.1 (as at
page 60-61 in Paper Book) is seen, on 1 st
July, 2008, his basic pay is shown as
Rs.57,260/- while that of Shri S.S.
Nighut (See Page 107) was Rs.55,870/-.
Then in the proforma of Pay Fixation,
entry on 22nd September, 2008 for Shri
5 wp8514-8515-2016
S.S. Nighut shows his basic pay as
"55870+5030 = 60,900". Thus the
increments were merged in the basic. This
would be discriminative between Senior
Teacher and Junior Teacher. Note 5 below
Appendix I of the G.R. needs to be
applied that such discrimination is
removed."
4. The factual details of the matter prompting the
petitioners to approach this Court need not be stated.
These petitions can be disposed of in view of the
reasons set out in the Judgment cited supra, decided by
this Court on 21-11-2013.
5. For the reasons recorded above, the instant
petitions need to be allowed and the same are
accordingly allowed. Respondents shall take necessary
steps to step-up pay of the petitioners so as to bring
it on par with their juniors and there shall be no
discrimination only on account of the fact that the
junior teacher has acquired Ph.D. Degree after
implementation of 6th Pay Commission.
6. Writ Petitions are allowed. Respondents are
directed to refix pay of the petitioners and arrears be
6 wp8514-8515-2016
paid within a period of three months.
7. Rule is accordingly made absolute. There shall
be no order as to costs.
[SANGITRAO S. PATIL] [R.M. BORDE]
JUDGE JUDGE
npj/wp8514-8515-2016
