Dr. Miss. Veena D/O. Manohar Mulay vs Rashtra Sant Tukdoji Maharaj ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 3434 Bom

    WP 1608/16                                          1                         Judgment


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,




                                                                                      
                    NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
                         WRIT PETITION No. 1608/2016




                                                              
    Dr.Miss Veena d/o Manohar Mulay,
    Aged about 66 years, Occupation retired,
    R/o 102, Poonam Heights, Pande Layout,
    Nagpur.                                                                   PETITIONER




                                                             
                                         .....VERSUS.....

    1.     Rashtra Sant Tukdoji Maharaj




                                                    
           Nagpur University,
           Near Maharajbag, Nagpur;
           Through Vice Chancellor.
                              
    2.     B.P. National Institute of Social Work,
           Run by Citizen's Education Society,
           Hanumannagar, Nagpur-440009;
                             
           Through its Principal.
    3.     State of Maharashtra,
           Ministry of Social Justice,
           Mantralaya, Mumbai;
           Through its Secretary.
      

    4.     Director,
           Directorate of Social Welfare,
   



           Government of Maharashtra, Pune-1.                                  RESPONDENTS

                           Shri S.S. Sharma, counsel for the petitioner.
                         Shri P.B. Patil, counsel for the respondent no.1.
          Ms Aarti Singh holding for Shri P.D. Meghe, counsel for the respondent no.2.





         Shri J.Y. Ghurde, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos.3 and 4.

                                           CORAM :SMT.VASANTI A.NAIK AND
                                                     MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.   

DATE : 28 TH JUNE, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT.VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)

RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard

finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel

for the parties.

WP 1608/16 2 Judgment

2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a declaration that the

petitioner is entitled to receive the arrears of pay as per the

recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission, with effect from

01.01.2006, till her retirement on attaining the age of superannuation on

31.12.2009. The petitioner seeks a direction against the respondents to

grant the pensionary benefits to the petitioner with effect from

01.01.2010.

3.

Few facts giving rise to the writ petition are stated thus :-

The petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in the respondent

no.2-B.P. National Institute of Social Work on 31.07.1970 after following

the due procedure. The petitioner joined the services of the respondent

no.2 with effect from 01.08.1970. The services of the petitioner were

temporary till 30.03.1971 and thereafter, the petitioner was continued in

service by extending her probation period from time to time, after

15.06.1972 till 31.03.1976. The petitioner continued to work in the

respondent no.2-College after completion of the probation period, on

31.03.1976. The respondent no.2-College was receiving 100% grant-in-

aid and, hence, the salary of the petitioner was released from the

Government Exchequer. It is the case of the petitioner that by

considering her services as confirmed, the respondent no.1-Rashtra Sant

Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University had appointed the petitioner as Ph.D.

WP 1608/16 3 Judgment

Supervisor, on 01.06.1994. The petitioner was a member on the Board

of Studies and the respondent no.1-University approved the appointment

of the petitioner as the In-charge Principal of the respondent no.2-College

by the approval order dated 25.05.2001. The petitioner was appointed

as a Member on the Enquiry Committee of the University for College

Affiliation and was also Officer-in-charge for Theory examination

and a Guide for practical examination with the approval of the

Nagpur University. The petitioner retired on attaining the age of

superannuation on 31.12.2009. In the meanwhile on 06.01.2001, the

respondent no.4, the Director, Directorate of Social Welfare, had

regularized the services of the petitioner from 1989-90. Since the

petitioner was continuously working in the respondent no.2-College as a

Lecturer with effect from 31.07.1970 and thereafter continued to hold the

post of the In-charge Principal in the respondent no.2-College from 2001

and also received the salary from the government grants, it is the case of

the petitioner that the petitioner believed that the petitioner would be

entitled to the fixation of the salary as per the recommendations of the 6 th

Pay Commission and would also be entitled to the pensionary benefits

with effect from 01.01.2010. The respondents, however, refused to fix

the salary of the petitioner and also pay the pensionary benefits. In this

background, the petitioner has approached this Court for the aforesaid

directions.

WP 1608/16 4 Judgment

4. Shri Ghurde, the learned Assistant Government Pleader

appearing for the respondent nos.3 and 4, submitted that the

respondent nos.3 and 4 have not received the proposal for grant

of pensionary benefits to the petitioner from the respondent nos.1

and 2. It is stated that if the proposal for grant of pension and the

other benefits is submitted to the respondent nos.3 and 4,

appropriate steps would be taken by the respondent nos.3 and 4

in the matter of releasing of the pensionary benefits as well as the

fixation of pay-scale, as per the recommendations of the 6 th Pay

Commission.

5. Learned counsel Ms Aarti Singh holding for Shri Meghe, the

learned counsel for the respondent no.2, supported the claim of the

petitioner and fairly admitted that the facts narrated by the petitioner in

the instant petition are true and correct. It is admitted that the petitioner

would be entitled to fixation of pay-scale as per the recommendations of

the 6th Pay Commission, with effect from 01.01.2006 and the petitioner

would also be entitled to the pensionary benefits from 01.01.2010. It is

stated that the respondent no.2 has sent the necessary proposal to the

respondent no.1-University but, the respondent no.1-University has not

acceded to the request of the petitioner.

WP 1608/16 5 Judgment

6. Shri Patil, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1-

University, submitted that in view of the Government Resolution dated

22.09.2011, that relates to revision of pay-scale of the teachers as per the

recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission, and specially Clause 9

thereof, it would be necessary for the respondent no.1-University to

consider whether a teacher had been lawfully appointed and the pay of

the teacher had been properly fixed as per the scheme. It is stated that

in view of the guidelines laid down in the Government Resolution

dated 22.09.2011, the respondent no.1-University had directed the

management to send the necessary documents pertaining to the

appointment of the petitioner in the year 1970 to the respondent no.1-

University to consider whether the petitioner was rightly appointed or

not. It is stated that the approval to the petitioner's initial appointment

was temporary.

7. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears

that the relief sought by the petitioner needs to be granted. The facts

narrated by the petitioner and recorded hereinabove are admitted by

the respondent nos.1 and 2, i.e. the University and the College. It is

obvious from the admitted facts that the petitioner was continuously

working as a Lecturer and the In-charge Principal in the respondent no.2-

College from 1970 till she attained the age of superannuation, on

WP 1608/16 6 Judgment

31.12.2009. Since the respondent no.2-College was receiving 100%

grant-in-aid, the petitioner received the salary from the grant-in-aid

that was released by the respondent no.3-State Government during her

service period. Neither the University nor the respondent nos.3 and 4,

i.e. the State Government and the Director, had raised any objection

during the service tenure of the petitioner from 1970 till 31.12.2009,

that her services were irregular and/or that she was not appointed by

following the due process or that she was not eligible for the post.

The petitioner not only continued to serve as a Lecturer and for some

time as In-charge Principal in the respondent no.2-College since 1970 till

31.12.2009 but, the University also granted several important

assignments to the petitioner. If the services of the petitioner were not

confirmed, it was not possible for the Nagpur University to have

granted various important assignments to the petitioner. The petitioner

was appointed as a Ph.D. Supervisor by the Nagpur University since 1994

and she was also a Member on the Board of Studies. The University had

approved the services of the petitioner as In-charge Principal, on

25.05.2001. The petitioner was a Member on the Enquiry Committee/

College Affiliation Committee with the approval of the Nagpur University

and she was also appointed as an Officer in-charge for the theory

examinations and a Guide for the practical examinations conducted

by the Nagpur University. The respondent no.4-Director had regularized

WP 1608/16 7 Judgment

the services of the petitioner for the period from 1989-90. It is clear

from the aforesaid facts that not only was the petitioner a confirmed

employee but, the petitioner was granted several assignments by the

respondent no.1-University during her service tenure. After the petitioner

retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on

31.12.2009, without any objection from any of the respondents,

whatsoever, the respondent no.1-University has wrongfully objected to

the rightful claims of the petitioner regarding fixation of pay-scale as per

the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission and the grant of

pensionary benefits with effect from 01.01.2010. The respondent no.1-

University should not have made an issue about the correctness or

otherwise of the initial recruitment of the petitioner in the year 1970

and ought not have called for the papers from the respondent no.2, in

regard to the appointment of the petitioner in the year 1970, in the

circumstances of the case. The action on the part of the respondent

no.1-University in seeking the old documents from the respondent no.2

despite the grant of temporary approval to the appointment of the

petitioner as Lecturer and as In-charge Principal in the year 2001, is

arbitrary. The respondent no.1-University should not have delayed the

matter in respect of the pay-fixation of the petitioner as per the

recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission for the reasons stated in the

affidavit that is tendered in the Court, today. We do not find any

WP 1608/16 8 Judgment

justification whatsoever in the inaction on the part of the respondent

no.1-University in playing its part in the matter of fixation of the pay-scale

of the petitioner as per the recommendations of the 6 th Pay Commission.

It is necessary to declare that the petitioner would be entitled to the

fixation of the pay-scale as per the recommendations of the 6 th Pay

Commission with effect from 01.01.2006 and would also be entitled to

the pensionary benefits with effect from 01.01.2010.

8.

Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is

allowed. The respondent no.1-University is directed to do the needful

and send the necessary proposal in respect of the fixation of the

pay-scale of the petitioner as per the recommendations of the 6 th Pay

Commission with effect from 01.01.2006 to the respondent nos.3

and 4, within a period of one month. We direct the respondent nos.3

and 4 to process the claim of the petitioner for the fixation of the pay-

scale as per the recommendations of the 6 th Pay Commission with

effect from 01.01.2006 at the earliest and positively within a period of

three months from the date of receipt of the same from the respondent

no.1-University. After the pay-scale is fixed in terms of the

recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission, the arrears of pension and

the regular pension should also be released in favour of the petitioner, at

the earliest.

WP 1608/16 9 Judgment

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as

to costs.

                  JUDGE                                    JUDGE
    APTE