Bombay High Court
Vijaykumar Limbajirao ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 26 February, 2016
Bench: S.S. Shinde
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 02/03/2016
1 WP NO.9292 OF 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.9292 OF 2015
1. Dr. Vijaykumar s/o Limbajirao Suryawanshi,
Age 58 yrs. Occ. Service
At present r/o c/o. R.R.Kulkarni,
Municipal Colony, Dargha Road,
Parbhani Tq and Dist. Parbhani.
2. Atmaram s/o Shamrao Gangane,
Age 45 yrs. Occ. Service,
r/o. 37/A Yogeshwari Nagar, Behind New Power,
House, Jintur Road, Parbhani,
Tq. and Dist. 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, Pune.
3. The Joint Director,
Higher Education, Nanded Region,
Nanded.
4. The Principal,
Dnyanopasak Shikshan Mandal's
College of Arts, Commerce and Science,
Parbhani Tq. and Dist. Parbhani.
...RESPONDENTS
...
Mr.N.D.Kendre, Adv., for petitioners.
Shri A.V.Deshmukh, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3.
Respondent no.4 served.
::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:47:21 :::
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 02/03/2016
2 WP NO.9292 OF 2015
CORAM: S.S.SHINDE
AND
P.R.BORA, JJ.
***
Date of reserving the judgment: 23/2/2016
Date of pronouncing judgment: 26/2/2016
***
JUDGMENT: (Per P.R.Bora, J.)
1. Heard.
ig Rule. Rule made returnable and heard
forthwith with the consent of learned Counsel for the petitioners
and learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 3. Respondent
no.4, though served, remained absent.
2. The petitioners are praying for issuance of Writ of
Mandamus or order or direction in the nature of Writ of
Mandamus, directing the respondents to step up the salary of
the petitioners equivalent to the salary of Associate Professors,
who are junior to them, with effect from the date of promotion
of the said junior Associate Professors, as per the Government
Resolution dated 12th August, 2009. The petitioners have
also prayed for issuance of direction to the respondents to pay
the amount admissible in accordance with the decision,
together with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 02/03/2016
3 WP NO.9292 OF 2015
from the date on which the amount becomes due and payable
till its actual disbursement.
3. Petitioners are serving as Associate Professors in
respondent no. 4 College. Their appointments have been duly
approved by respondent No.3.. Both the petitioners hold
Ph.D. degree. Petitioner no.1 came to be appointed as
Lecturer on 1st of August, 1981, whereas, petitioner no.2 was
appointed w.e.f. 23rd July, 1990. The grievance of the
petitioners is that, on implementation of Sixth Pay Commission,
juniors of the petitioners, who have acquired Ph.D. degree
subsequent to 1.1.2006, were allowed five additional
increments whereas the petitioner no.1, who has secured the
Ph.D. degree in May, 1989, and petitioner no.2, who has
secured the degree of Ph.D. in the year 2004, are deprived of
the said benefit.
4. The petitioners have pointed out the cases of
Dr.A.H.Shrirame, Dr.M.V.Sangle and Dr.D.T.Ibbatwar, who are
junior to them. As stated earlier, petitioner no.1
Dr.V.L.Suryawanshi came to be appointed w.e.f. 1.8.1991
whereas Dr.A.H.Shrirame was appointed w.e.f. 30th of August,
1984, and Dr.M.V.Sangle came to be appointed w.e.f.
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 02/03/2016
4 WP NO.9292 OF 2015
15.6.1987. Dr. A.H.Shrirame and Dr.M.V.Sangle both have
acquired the degree of Ph.D. much after petitioner no.1
Dr.V.L.Suryawanshi. Petitioner no.1 acquired the degree of
Ph.D. in the year 1989 whereas Dr.A.H.Shrirame acquired the
same in May, 2007, and Dr.M.V.Sangle obtained the same in
December, 2009. Similarly, Dr.D.T.Ibbatwar is junior to
petitioner No.2 Dr.Gangane. Petitioner No.2 was appointed on
23.7.1990 and he acquired the degree of Ph.D. on 3.7.2004,
whereas, Dr.Ibbatwar's date of appointment is 18.7.1991 and
he received the Ph.D. degree on 2.6.2008.
5. It is the further contention of the petitioners that
Dr.A.H.Shrirame and Dr.M.V.Sangle, who were drawing the
salary in the lower pay scale than petitioner no.1 till April,
2007, started receiving the salary in the higher pay scale than
petitioner no.1. As per the information provided in the
petition, till April, 2007, Dr.A.H.Shrirame and Dr.M.V.Sangle
were drawing their wages in the pay scale of Rs.38,530/-
whereas, petitioner no.1 was drawing the salary in the pay
scale of Rs.40,890/-, however, with effect from 1.5.2007,
when Dr.A.H.Shrirame and Dr.M.V.Sangle started receiving the
salary in the pay scale of Rs.44,370/- plus Annual Grade Pay of
Rs.9,000/-, and Rs.49,340/- plus Rs.9,000/- towards Annual
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 02/03/2016
5 WP NO.9292 OF 2015
Grade Pay, respectively, the petitioner no.1 was drawing the
salary in the pay scale of Rs.42,390/- plus Rs.9,000/- Annual
Grade Pay. Likewise, Dr.Ibbatwar, who was drawing the salary
in the lower pay scale than petitioner no.2, started receiving
the salary in the higher pay scale than petitioner no.2 with
effect from 2.6.2008.
6. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioners
have prayed for stepping up their salaries at par with the
persons junior to them.
7. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners
submitted that the issue raised in the present petition is no
more res integra in view of the judgment delivered by the
Division Bench of this court in the case of Sudamrao
Keshavrao Aher & Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and
Ors. - 2014(1) ALL MR 697. Learned Counsel, therefore,
prayed for allowing the petition by directing the respondents to
step up the salaries of the petitioners at par with the persons
junior to them.
8) Learned AGP has opposed the submissions made on
behalf of the petitioners and has prayed for dismissal of the
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 02/03/2016
6 WP NO.9292 OF 2015
petition.
9) After having considered the facts involved in the
present petition, in the light of the judgment delivered by the
Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Sudamrao
Keshawrao Aher & Ors. (cited supra), we have no doubt that,
the case of the present petitioners is squarely covered by the
aforementioned judgment of the Division Bench.
10) The Petitioners have relied upon the Government
Resolution dated 12.08.2009, note 6 of which provides that, in
case where the 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 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.
11. In the present petition also, it is revealed that the
incentives were given to the petitioners as also to their juniors,
but in the process, the juniors are getting a substantial sum
more every month than the petitioners. This anomaly has
occurred for the reason that, the teachers junior to the
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 02/03/2016
7 WP NO.9292 OF 2015
petitioners who have been awarded Ph.D. Degree after 01st
January, 2006 are made entitled to three non compoundable
increments, whereas the petitioners who acquired Ph.D.
degrees before 1st January 2006, were extended only two
increments.
12) The aforesaid controversy has been dealt with by
the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Sudamrao
Keshawrao Aher & Ors. (cited supra). In para 15 of the said
judgment, the Division Bench has observed thus:
"15. In 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 be 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 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 if it was a fault to have acquired
Ph.D.Degree earlier."
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 02/03/2016
8 WP NO.9292 OF 2015
13. In the instant matter, petitioner no.1 is, admittedly,
senior to Dr. A. H. Shrirame and Dr. M.V.Sangle whereas,
petitioner no.2 Dr.A.S.Gangane is admittedly senior to
Dr.D.T.Ibbatwar. There is further no dispute that till April,
2007, petitioner no.1 was drawing the salary in the higher pay
scale than Dr. A.H.Shrirame and Dr.M.V.Sangle whereas,
petitioner no.2 Dr. A.S.Gangane was drawing the salary in the
higher pay scale than Dr. D.T.Ibbatwar. However, after Dr.
A.H.Shrirame and Dr.M.V.Sangle acquired the degree of Ph.D.,
respectively, in the years 2007 and 2009, both were provided
with the additional increments and were respectively placed in
the pay scale of Rs.44,370/- plus Rs.9,000/- annual grade pay,
and Rs.49,340/- plus Rs.9,000/- annual grade pay. Similarly,
Dr. D.T.Ibbatwar, who is admittedly junior to petitioner no.2,
Dr.Gangane, started receiving the salary in the higher pay scale
than petitioner no.2 w.e.f. 2.6.2008. As held by the Division
Bench of this Court, in the case of Sudamrao Keshavrao
Aher & Ors. (cited supra), such position cannot be allowed to
be maintained.
14. In view of the reasons set out in the judgment of
Sudamrao Keshavrao Aher & Ors. (cited supra), the instant
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 02/03/2016
9 WP NO.9292 OF 2015
petition also deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly
allowed. We direct the respondents to step up the salary of
the petitioners at par with the similarly placed teachers junior
to them and compute the salary and arrears payable to the
petitioners in accordance with the judgment and order passed
by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case of
Sudamrao Keshavrao Aher & Ors. (cited supra) and release
the amount to the petitioners as expeditiously as possible, and
preferably, within six months from the date of this order.
Rule is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms
with no order as to costs.
(P.R.BORA) (S.S.SHINDE)
JUDGE JUDGE
...
AGP/9292-15wp
