Bombay High Court
Chatur Pundlik Sawant And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 2 March, 2016
Bench: S.S. Shinde
1 WP No. 381/2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.381 OF 2016
1) Dr.Chatur Pundlik Sawant,
Age: 54 Yrs., occu. Service,
R/o Nandurbar, Tq. And Dist.
Nandurbar.
2) Dr.Vijay Yashwantrao Jadhav,
age: 59 Yrs., occu. Service,
R/o Nandurbar, Tq. And Dist.
Nandurbar.
3) Dr.Girish Haribhau Mahajan,
age: 58 Yrs., occu. Service.
R/o Nandurbar, Tq. And Dist.
Nandurbar.
4) Dr.Khalid Mohamad Sharif,
age: 58 Yrs., occu. Service,
R/o Nandurbar, Tq. And Dist.
Nandurbar.
5) Dr.Shakhila Khalid Sharif,
age: 57 Yrs., occu. Service,
R/o Nandurbar, Tq. And Dist.
Nandurbar. - PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra
Through its Principal Secretary,
::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 07:32:46 :::
2 WP No. 381/2016
Higher & Technical Educational
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2) The Director of Higher Education,
Maharashtra State, Central Bldg.
Pune, District Pune.
3) The Joint Director of Higher
Education, Department of
Higher Education,
Dr.Ambedkar Road, Pune,
District Pune.
4) North Maharashtra University,
Jalgaon, Through its
Registrar.
5) G.T.Patil Arts, Commerce &
Science College, Nandurbar,
Through its Principal. - RESPONDENTS
*****
Mr.DS Bagul, Advocate for Petitioner/s
Mr.PG Borade,AGP for State.
Mr.LS Mahajan, Adv. For Respondent No.5.
-----
CORAM : S.S.SHINDE &
P.R.BORA,JJ.
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT :24
th
February,2016.
DATE OF PRONOUCING JUDGMENT: 2
nd
March, 2016.
JUDGMENT (PER:-P.R.BORA,J.)
1) Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable
forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel
for the parties, the petition is taken up for
final disposal at admission stage.
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 9 per cent
per annum from the date on which the amount
becomes due and payable till its actual
disbursement.
3) All the five petitioners in the present
petition are admittedly senior to one Dr. Mrs.
V.S.Patil. Till 30th August, 2008, said Mrs. Patil
was drawing salary in the lower pay scale than
all the petitioners. However, by virtue of three
increments released in her favour by virtue of
her acquiring the degree of Ph.D., basic pay of
Mrs. Patil was fixed at Rs.47,630/- w.e.f.
1.9.2008; whereas the basic pay of the
petitioners remained the same i.e. Rs.44,230/-.
In the circumstances, relying upon the Government
Resolution dated 12th August, 2009, Note 6 of
which provides that in case where the senior
teacher promoted to higher post before 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 first day of January,
2006, pay of such senior teacher should be
stepped up to an amount equal to the pay in the
pay band as fixed for his junior in that higher
post, the petitioners have prayed for stepping up
their pay at par with Dr. Mrs. Patil, who is
junior to them.
4) We have not indulged in reproducing the
facts of the case in detail since the same are
not disputed by the respondents. Moreover,
sufficient material has been placed on record by
the petitioners, about their qualifications,
appointment, approval, pay scales and incriments
etc. Similar issue was involved in the mater
of Sudamrao Keshavrao Aher (cited supra) and the
learned Division Bench of this Court, while
dealing with the controversy raised in the said
matter, in Para 15 of the said judgment 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."
5) In the instant matter, we reiterate that
the petitioners are admittedly senior to one Dr.
Mrs. V.S.Patil, but are receiving less salary
than her from 1.9.2008. As held by the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Sudamrao
Keshavrao Aher (supra), such position cannot be
allowed to be maintained.
6) In view of the reasons set out in the
judgment of Sudamrao Keshavrao Aher & Ors. (cited
supra), the instant 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
matter of Sudamrao Keshavrao Aher & Ors. (cited
supra) and release the said amount to the
petitioners as expeditiously as possible, and
preferably, within six months from the date of
this order.
7) Rule is accordingly made absolute in the
aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
sd/- sd/-
(P.R.BORA) (S.S.SHINDE)
JUDGE JUDGE
bdv/
fldr 25.2.16
