Bombay High Court
Venkat Janardhanappa Vilegave ... 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. 10148 OF 2016
1. Dr. Venkat s/o Janardhanappa Vilegave,
Age : 56 years, Occu. Service,
R/o Shri Guru Budhiswami College,
Purna, Tq. Purna, Dist. Parbhani
2. Dr. Baswaraj s/o Maruti Biradar,
Age : 55 years, Occu. Service,
R/o Shri Guru Budhiswami College,
Purna, Tq. Purna, Dist. Parbhani
3.
Dr. Purushottam s/o Pralhad Sharma,
Age : 58 years, Occu. Service,
R/o Science College, Nanded,
Tq. and District Nanded
4. Dr. Pradeep s/o Rajaram Wesanekar,
Age : 55 years, Occu. Service,
R/o Science College, Nanded,
Tq. and District Nanded
5. Dr. Dattatraya s/o Dnyandeo Pawar,
Age : 55 years, Occu. Service,
R/o Science College, Nanded,
Tq. and District Nanded
6. Dr. Maloji s/o Khandojirao Fugare,
Age : 61 years, Occu. Service,
R/o Science College, Nanded,
Tq. and District Nanded
7. Dr. Nandeshwar s/o Mukhalan Sontakke,
Age : 60 years, Occu. Service,
R/o Science College, Nanded,
Tq. and District Nanded
8. Dr. Ashok s/o Hullaji Shrirame,
Age : 57 years, Occu. Service,
R/o D.S.M.S. Arts, Commerce and
::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2016 01:12:41 :::
2 wp10148-2016
Science College, Parbhani,
Tq. and District Parbhani PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Higher and Technical Education
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32
2. The Director, Higher Education,
Maharashtra State,
Central Building, Pune
3. The Joint Director,
Higher Education
Nanded Division, Nanded
4. The Secretary,
University Grants Commission,
Bahadur Shah Jafar Marg,
New Delhi - 110 002
5. The Registrar,
Swami Ramanand Teerth
Marathwada University,
Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nandd
6. The Principal,
Science College, Nanded,
Tq. & District Nanded
8. The Principal,
D.S.M.S. Arts, Commerce
and Science College,
Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani RESPONDENTS
----
Mr. H.V. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioners
Mr. A.S.Shinde, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 to 3
Mr. Alok Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 4
----
::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2016 01:12:41 :::
3 wp10148-2016
CORAM : R.M. BORDE AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 22nd December, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : R.M. BORDE, J.) :
Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With
the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for
final hearing and disposal at the stage of admission.
3. The facts giving rise to the instant petition
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
4 wp10148-2016
of time, junior teacher could not be
getting more salary than the senior only
because the junior has just acquired the
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.
5 wp10148-2016
Nighut (See Page 107) was Rs.55,870/-.
Then in the proforma of Pay Fixation,
entry on 22nd September, 2008 for Shri
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.
This petition 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
petition needs to be allowed and the same is 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 wp10148-2016
6. Writ Petition is allowed. Respondents are
directed to refix pay of the petitioners and arrears be
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 ig JUDGE
npj/wp10148-2016
