Bombay High Court
Narra Hari Babu vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 20 June, 2016
Bench: S.S. Shinde
1 wp4090.16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 4090 OF 2016
Dr. Narra Hari Babu,
age 54 years, occ. Service,
R/o Shirpur, Taluka
and District Dhule ...Petitioner
VERSUS
1] The State of Maharashtra,
through its Principal Secretary,
Higher & 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,Department of
Higher Education,
District Jalgaon ...Respondents
.....
Shri D.S.Bagul, advocate for petitioner
Shri P.N.Kutti, A.G.P. for respondents/State
.....
CORAM : S.S.SHINDE
AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE OF RESERVING
THE JUDGMENT : 14.6.2016
DATE OF PRONOUNCING
THE JUDGMENT : 20.6.2016
::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:04:30 :::
2 wp4090.16
JUDGMENT (Per Santigrao S.Patil, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
With the consent of the learned counsel for the
parties, heard finally.
2] The petitioner is serving as a Lecturer in
S.P.D.M. Arts, S.B.B. and S.H.D. Commerce, and
S.M.A. Science College, Shirpur, District Dhule
since 5th September, 1988. He acquired Ph.D.
qualification on 12th August, 1988. One
Dr.C.M.Pawara, who is the junior most Lecturer,
joined the service in the said College on 8th
October, 1990. He acquired Ph.D. on 13 th May,
2008. After implementation of the recommendations
of the VI Pay Commission the basic pay of the
petitioner came to be fixed at Rs.44,230/-, while
that of Dr.C.M.Pawara at Rs. 46,310/-, though he
is junior to the petitioner. According to the
petitioner this amounts to discrimination as
prohibited under Article 14 of the Constitution of
India. He, therefore, filed the present petition
3 wp4090.16
for getting his pay stepped up to the extent of
the pay of his junior Dr.C.M.Pawara in view of
Note 6 Appendix I of the Government Resolution,
dated 12th August, 2009.
3] The learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that in view of the judgment in the case
of Sudamrao Keshawrao Aher & others vs The State
of Maharashtra and others (2014 (1) All MR 697),
wherein the same controversy has been set at rest,
the petitioner is entitled to get his pay stepped
up to bring it at par with that of his junior
Dr.C.M.Pawara.
4] The learned A.G.P. opposed the petition.
However, he could not show anything to controvert
the claim of the petitioner.
5] Note 6, Appendix I of the Government
Resolution dated 12th August, 2009 reads as
under :-
4 wp4090.16
" 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 highest
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
identical.
(iii) the senior teacher at the time
of promotion should have been drawing
5 wp4090.16
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."
6] We considered the facts of the present
petition and appreciated the arguments of the
learned counsel for the petitioner and that of the
learned Assistant Government Pleader with
reference to Note 6 Appendix I above, and the
principles laid down 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 pay to bring it
at par with the pay of his junior fixed as per the
6 wp4090.16
recommendations of the VI Pay Commission with
effect from 1st September, 2008.
8] In the result, the petition is allowed.
We direct the respondents to step up the salary of
the petitioner to bring it at par with that of Dr.
C.M.Pawara, refix the pay of the petitioner
accordingly and pay arrears to him as
expeditiously as possible and in any case within a
period of three months from today in accordance
with the judgment and order passed by this Court
in the case of Sudamrao Keshawrao Aher and others
vs The State of Maharashtra and others (supra).
9] Rule is accordingly made absolute in the
aforesaid terms. The parties are left to bear
their own costs.
(SANGITRAO S. PATIL) (S.S.SHINDE)
JUDGE JUDGE
dbm/wp4090.16
