Bombay High Court
Shantilal Dagdu Rathod vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 17 November, 2016
Bench: R.M. Borde
wp11296.16.doc
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 11296 OF 2016
Dr. Shantilal s/o Dagdu RAthod
age 51 years, occ. service
r/o D2/1, Samyak Arcade, N-5 Cidco
Aurangabad
Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad .. PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary
Higher and Technical Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.ig
2. The Director,
Higher Education Maharashtra State,
Pune.
3. The Joint Director,
Higher Education, Aurangabad Region,
Aurangabad.
4. The Principal } Deleted vide order
Milind College of Science, } dated 17.11.2016.
Nagsenvana Aurangabad, }
Tq. Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad. .. RESPONDENTS
Mr. N.D. Kendre, advocate for petitioner.
Mr. K.D. Mundhe, AGP for the State.
=====
CORAM : R.M. BORDE &
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 17th NOVEMBER, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER R. M. BORDE, J. )
1. Leave to delete name of respondent no. 4 from the array of
respondents.
2. Heard.
wp11296.16.doc
3. Rule. With the consent of the parties, petition is taken up for final
decision at admission stage.
4. The facts giving rise to the instant petition are identical to the facts of
the matter decided by Division Bench of this Court on 21 st November, 2013,
i.e. Writ Petition No. 10283 of 2012 and other companion matters. In
paragraph no. 15 of the judgment, the Division Bench has observed thus :
"15. In the present matter, according to us, the
incentives while implementing 6th Pay Commission
for Ph.D. cannot be 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 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 it was a fault to have acquired Ph.D.
Degree earlier. It is not a case of keeping the
incentive separate and not part of pay. If pay
fixation of petitioner no. 1 (as at page 60-61 in
Paper Book) is seen, on 1st July, 2008, his basic
pay is shown as Rs. 57,260/- while that of Shri
S.S. Nighut (See page 107) was Rs. 55,870/-. Then
in the proforma of Pay Fixation, entry on 22 nd
September, 2008 for Shri S.S. Nighut shows his
wp11296.16.doc
basic pay as "55870 + 5030 = 60900". Thus the
increments were merged in the basic. This would
be discriminative between Senior Teacher and
Junior Teacher. Note 5 below Appendix I of the G.r.
Needs to be applied that such discrimination is
removed."
5. The factual details of the matter prompting the petitioners to
approach this Court need not be stated. This petition can be disposed of in
view of the reasons set out in the Judgment cited supra, decided by this
Court on 21-11-2013.
6.
For the reasons recorded above, the instant petition needs to be
allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. Respondents shall take
necessary steps to step-up pay of the petitioners so as to bring it on par
with their juniors and there shall be n o discrimination only on account of
the fact that the junior teacher has acquired Ph.D. Degree after
implementation of 6th Pay Commission.
7. Writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause 'A'. Respondents are
directed to refix pay of the petitioners and arrears be paid within a period of
three months.
8. Rule is accordingly made absolute. There shall be no order as to
costs.
( SANGITRAO S. PATIL ) ( R. M. BORDE )
JUDGE JUDGE
dyb
