Bombay High Court
Dr. Sanjay Anandrao Pawade And ... vs State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 14 March, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
wp2448.15 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2448 OF 2015
1. Dr. Sanjay Anandrao Pawade,
Aged about 36 years, occupation
- Assistant Professor.
2. Dr. Shrish Dayakarrao Gaddamwar,
aged about 34 years, occupation -
Assistant Professor.
3. Dr. Kirti Baliramji Rathod,
aged about 39 years,
occupation - Assistant Professor.
4. Dr. Ashok Baliramji Punse,
aged about 58 years,
occupation - Assistant Professor.
5. Dr. Milind Daulatrao Nimbalkar,
aged about 47 years,
occupation - Assistant Professor.
6. Dr. Pradhnya Krishna Ghormade,
aged about 42 years, occupation
Assistant Professor.
7. Dr. Pushpa Sadashivrao Narlawar,
aged about 47 years, occupation
Assistant Professor.
8. Dr. Sahebrao Krushnarao Kadam,
aged about 43 years, occupation
Assistant Professor.
9. Dr. Priti Ghanshyam Makade,
aged about 36 years, occupation
Assistant Professor.
10.Dr. Mamta S. Jaiswal,
aged about 44 years,
::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:57:30 :::
wp2448.15 2
occupation - Assistant Professor.
All r/o D.M.M. Ayurved Mahavidyalaya,
Arni Road, Shivaji Nagar, Yavatmal
445 001. ... PETITIONERS
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Chief Secretary,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Dy. Secretary,
Department of Medical Education
and Drugs, 9th Floor, G.T. Hospital
Complex, L.T. Marg, Mumbai 01.
3. The Maharashtra University of
Health Sciences, Nashik, Dighori
Road, Mhasrul, Nasik 422 004
through its Vice Chancellor.
4. The Director, Ayurved, Mumbai
Ayush Directorate, Mumbai,
Saint George Hospital Compound,
P. Demelo Road, Fort, Mumbai.
5. The Assistant Director of Ayurved,
State of Maharashtra, New
Administrative Building, Civil Lines,
Nagpur.
6. D.M.M. Ayurved Mahavidyalaya,
Arni Road, Shivaji Nagar, Yavatmal,
through its Principal. ... RESPONDENTS
Shri L.G. Meshram, Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. P.D. Rane, AGP for respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 & 5.
Shri J.B. Jaiswal, Advocate for respondent No. 3.
Shri Bhise, Advocate holding for Shri Ghurde, learned counsel for
respondent No. 6.
.....
::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:57:30 :::
wp2448.15 3
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ.
MARCH 14, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard
finally with the consent of Shri Meshram, learned counsel for
the petitioners, Ms. Rane, learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1,
2, 4 & 5, Shri Jaiswal, learned counsel for respondent No. 3
and Shri Bhise, Advocate holding for Shri Ghurde, learned
counsel for respondent No. 6.
2. The fact that the petitioners have become eligible
for grant of Academic Grade Pay (AGP) is not in dispute. The
relevant Government Resolution dated 08.09.2011 is on the
subject of Revision of pay scales as per recommendations of
Sixth Pay Commission. The said benefit has been given to the
petitioners. As per clause 3(a)(i), AGP of Rs.6,000/- is
sanctioned to them. However, those Assistant Professors, who
have completed four years and possess M.D./ M.S./ Ph. D.
degree in the relevant discipline are eligible for moving up to
AGP of Rs.7,000/-. This benefit of AGP of Rs.7,000/- has not
been extended to the petitioners.
3. The petitioners have along with the petition,
submitted a chart which shows their calculations, date of
appointment and also due date for extending benefit of AGP of
Rs.7,000/- to them. The data given therein is not in dispute.
4.
Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 & 5 have filed reply
affidavit and therein it is submitted that this movement from
AGP of Rs.6,000/- to Rs.7,000/- is contingent upon fulfillment
of certain conditions. It is not the case of the respondents that
the petitioners do not fulfill those conditions or that their
institution is not complying with the same. However, it is
pointed out that the office of Assistant Director of Ayurvedic,
Nagpur, has on 26.06.2014 communicated to five Institutes in
Vidarbha region, not to extend AGP of Rs.7,000/-. The
reasons in support of this action are not disclosed. In next
para of the affidavit, it is submitted that the decision is
pending at the Government level and the respondents are
awaiting decision of the Government.
5. The petitioners have pointed out that a Private
College by name Shet Govindji Ravji Ayurved Mahavidyalaya,
which is similarly situated, has been given that benefit. Even
this fact is not in dispute.
6. In this situation, when there is already a
Government Resolution which stipulates that the petitioners
are entitled to said benefit, this action of withholding it or
awaiting for Government decision is unsustainable.
7. The only question will be to examine the case of
each petitioner or then their employer i.e. Respondent No. 6
for eligibility.
8. We, therefore, direct Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 to
complete that exercise within three months from today. The
benefit of AGP of Rs.7,000/- then shall be released in favour of
such of the petitioners as are found eligible by said
respondents.
9. With these directions and leaving all contentions
open, we partly allow the present writ petition and dispose it
of. Rule is made absolute in above terms. However, in the
facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as
to costs.
JUDGE
ig JUDGE
******
*GS.
