Bombay High Court
Venkat Bapurao Tak And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 18 March, 2016
Bench: R.M. Borde
1 WP NOS.966 & 977 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 966 OF 2016
Association of College and University
Superannuated Teachers, (Maharashtra)
A society registered at No.MAH-853/2009
Under the provisions of the Societies
Registration Act, having its Head office at
20, Sawarkarnagar, N-5 (South), Cidco,
Aurangabad, through its President andseession
Convenor, Principal Dr.M.A.Wahul.
ig ...PETITIONER
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,
Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad.
4. The Joint Director, Higher Education,
Nanded Region, Nanded.
5. The Joint Director, Higher Education,
Jalgaon Region, Jalgaon.
6. The Joint Director, Higher Education,
Nagpur Region, Nagpur.
7. The Joint Director, Higher Education,
Kolhapur Region, Kolhapur.
8. The Joint Director, Higher Education,
Pune Region, Pune.
::: Uploaded on - 31/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 09:29:32 :::
2 WP NOS.966 & 977 of 2016
9. The Joint Director, Higher Education,
Solapur Region, Solapur.
...
Ms.Neha B.Kamble, Adv., h/f Mr. S.V.Adwant, Adv.
for the petitioner.
Mr. S.M.Ganachari, AGP for respondent nos. 1 to
9.
...
WRIT PETITION NO.977 OF 2016
1. Dr.Venkat Bapurao Tak,
Age 72 years, Occ : Pensioner,
R/o. Vaishnav Nagar,Karagaon Naka Road,
Parbhani.
2. Dr.Laxmikant Vamanrao Ambegaonkar,
Age 74 years, Occ: Pensioner,
r/o Swagat Sant Dasganu Nagar,
Parbhani.
3. Dr.Laxman Pandurangrao Kulkarni,
Age 77 years, Occ: Pensioner,
R/o Shivramnagar, Parbhani.
4. Dr.Shankarrao Laxmanrao Rapte,
Age 76 years, Occ: Pensioner,
R/o Karegaon Road, Parbhani.
5. Dr.Vithal Bapurao Shelke,
Age 66 years, Occ: Pensioner,
R/o. Niwara Lokmanya Nagar,
Karagaon Road, Parbhani.
6. Dr.Pandit Govindrao Sakhare,
Age 76 years, Occ: Pensioner,
r/o. 107, Samadhan Lokmanya Nagar,
Parbhani.
7. Dr.Nagnath Narayan Shinde,
Age 68 years, Occ: Pensioner,
r/o. 59 Manlee, Lokmanya Nagar,
Parbhani.
::: Uploaded on - 31/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 09:29:32 :::
3 WP NOS.966 & 977 of 2016
8. Dr.Vilas Trimbakrao Wattamwar,
Age 65 years, Occ: Pensioner,
R/o. Swati Building, Vishnunagar, Parbhani.
9. Dr.Narwadkar Prabhkar Ramrao
Age 68 years, Occ:Pensioner,
R/o.Tuljabhuvan Ramkrishna Nagar,
Basmat Road, Parbhani.
10. Dr.Nilkanth Dattarao Deshmukh,
Age 68 years, Occ. Pensioner,
R/o. `Bhagya', Laxminagar, Basmat Road,
Parbhani.
11. Dr.Pandurang Waghoji Yengade,
Age 70 years, Occ: Pensioner,
r/o. Krishi Sarathi Colony, Krishi nagar,
Parbhani.
12. Dr.Ambaji Namdevrao Gitte,
Age 64 years, Occ: Pensioner,
r/o. Krishi Sarathi Colony, Basmat Road,
Parbhani 431 401
...PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Secretary, Agriculture,
Animal Husbandary, Dairy Development
And Fisheries Department,
Mantralaya Annex, Mumbai.
2. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Secretary,
Finance Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
3. Vasantrao Naik Marathwada
Agricultural University,
Parbhani, through its Vice-Chancellor,
Parbhani.
...RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 31/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 09:29:32 :::
4 WP NOS.966 & 977 of 2016
Ms.Neha B.Kamble, Adv., h/f Mr. S.V.Adwant, Adv.
for the petitioner.
Mr. S.M.Ganachari, AGP for respondent nos. 1 & 2.
Mr.M.N.Navandas, Adv., for respondent no.3.
...
CORAM: R.M.BORDE
AND
P.R.BORA, JJ.
DATE : March 18th, 2016
***
ORAL JUDGMENT: ( Per R.M.Borde, J.)
1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable and heard
forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel for the
parties.
2. The grievance raised in the instant petitions is
identical as in the decided matter presented by one Dr.Jeurkar
Ramkrishna Keshavrao and others Vs. The State of
Maharashtra and others, in Writ Petition No.440 of 2015,
decided by the Division Bench of this Court on 10th April, 2015.
The petitioners claim entitlement to two advance increments on
the basis of Government Resolution dated 11th December,
1999. Under the aforesaid Government Resolution, a decision
was taken to award revised pay scale and also increments
towards Career Advancement Scheme in favour of the
petitioners who had secured Ph. D. degrees. In accordance
5 WP NOS.966 & 977 of 2016
with the aforesaid Government Resolution, the effective date of
implementation was 1st of January, 1996, for those who had
acquired Ph.D. degrees earlier to the said date and in respect of
those those who had acquired it subsequently, it was decided
that the date of extension of benefits in such cases would be
the date of acquisition of the Ph. D. degree.
In both these petitions, the petitioners have acquired the
Ph. D. degree and, as such, are entitled to claim benefits under
the Government policy.
3. For the reasons recorded in the judgment delivered
by the Division Bench of this Court on 10th April, 2015 in Writ
Petition No.440/2015, as well as in Writ Petition
No.10431/2012, decided on 15th July, 2014, the petitions
deserve to be allowed and those are accordingly allowed.
The petitioners who have completed their Ph. D. degree
prior to 1.1.1996, would be given benefit of two increments of
Rs.420/-. The respondents shall make payment in respect of
the aforesaid benefit of two increments with effect from
1.1.1996 with all consequential benefits to which the petitioners
are legally entitled to in accordance with the relevant
Government Resolutions and policy of the Government.
6 WP NOS.966 & 977 of 2016
In respect of one of the teacher, petitioner in Writ Petition
No.977/2016, he shall be entitled to the benefits from the date
of acquisition of Ph.D. degree in accordance with the circular
dated 27.6.2000 with consequential benefits admissible in
accordance with the relevant regulations and the policy
prescribed in that behalf.
4. Counsel appearing for the petitioners canvassed
that the petitioners are entitled to claim interest on the amount
of advance increments which were not granted to the
petitioners. Reliance is placed on the judgments in the matters
of :
(a) Dr.Uma Agrawal Vs. State of U.P. and another
( (1999) 3 SCC 438)
(b) S.K.Dua vs. State of Haryana and another
( (2008) 3 SCC 44)
(c) S.R.Bhanrale vs. Union of India and others
( (1996) 10 SCC 172)
(d) D.D.Tewari (Dead) through legal
representatives
versus
Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and
others.
( (2014) 8 SCC 894)
In all these matters relating to grant of retiral benefits,
the Supreme Court observed that retirement benefit shall not
be a bounty and those were withheld unnecessarily and
7 WP NOS.966 & 977 of 2016
directed payment of interest on the amounts due. The
judgments cited are not applicable in the facts and
circumstances of the instant case.
5. In the instant case, there was a dispute as to the
entitlement of the petitioners to claim advance increments.
The issue was settled by this Court in the matter of Dr.Jeurkar
R.K. Vs. State of Maharashtra ( Writ Petition No.440/2015)
decided on 10th April, 2015. It is not a case of the petitioners
that withholding of the benefits is because of the lapse on the
part of the respondents or that it is an intentional act of the
respondents depriving the petitioners to secure the benefits.
Similarly, reliance is also placed on the judgment in the
matter of Harkant Hiralal Vohra (Dead) by LRs Vs. Union
of India and another ( (1998) 8 SCC 202).
Considering the facts giving rise to the aforesaid matter,
and on perusal of orders passed in similar matters, neither it
was canvassed that the benefit of interest shall be admissible to
petitioners therein, nor demand for interest appears to have
been pressed into service.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we
do not deem it necessary to consider the request of the
petitioners for grant of interest on the amount of advance
8 WP NOS.966 & 977 of 2016
increments, due and payable.
Rule is accordingly made absolute in both the petitions.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(P.R.BORA) (R.M.BORDE)
JUDGE JUDGE
...
AGP/966-977-16wp
