Vijay Ratanlal Nagori vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 6539 Bom

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                            BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            WRIT PETITION NO. 8565 OF 2016




                                                                                 
    Prof. Vijay s/o Ratanlal Nagori,




                                                         
    Age : 50 years, Occu. Professor
    and Head, Department of Commerce,
    Smt. Dankunwar Mahila Mahavidyalaya,
    Jalna, R/o Sukhshantinagar,




                                                        
    Mantha Road, Jalna,
    Tal. And District Jalna                                                 PETITIONER

                    VERSUS




                                                
    1.     The State of Maharashtra,
           through its Principal Secretary,
                                  
           Higher and Technical Education
           Department, Mantralaya Annex,
           Mumbai - 32
                                 
    2.     The Director of Higher Education,
           Maharashtra State, 
           Central Building,
      

           Pune
   



    3.     The Joint Director of Higher Education,
           Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad

    4.     Smt. Dankunwar Mahila Mahavidyalaya,





           Jalna, R/o Sukhshantinagar, 
           Mantha Road, Jalna,
           Tal. And District Jalna,
           through its Principal                                            RESPONDENTS





                              ----
    Mr. S.S. Thombre, Advocate for the Petitioner
    Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 to 3
    Mr. M.S. Karad, Advocate for respondent No. 4
                              ----

                                            CORAM :   R.M. BORDE AND
                                                      SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.

DATE : 18th November, 2016

2 WP8565-2016

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : R.M. BORDE, J. :

Heard.

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 21st 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 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 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

3 WP8565-2016

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 1 st 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 22nd September, 2008 for Shri S.S. Nighut shows his basic pay as "55870+5030 = 60,900". Thus the

4 WP8565-2016

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

petitioner 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 petitioner so as to bring it on par with

his juniors and there shall be no 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 "B". Respondents are directed to refix pay of the

petitioner and arrears be paid within a period of three

months.

5 WP8565-2016

8. Rule is accordingly made absolute. There shall

be no order as to costs.

                                                                     
                                             
           [SANGITRAO S. PATIL]                 [R.M. BORDE]
                  JUDGE                             JUDGE




                                            
    npj/WP8565-2016