Bombay High Court
Ramdas Sitaram Wanare And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 24 November, 2016
Bench: R.M. Borde
1 31-wp11640.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.11640 OF 2016
1. Ramdas Sitaram Wanare,
Age:54 years, Occ. Service,
r/o. Plot No.76, Godavari Niwas,
Auditors Society, Harsool,
Aurangabad
2. Kalyan Bhausaheb Laghane,
Age : 58 years, Occ. Service,
r/o. Plot No.105,
Vakratund Complex, Tilak Nagar,
Garkheda, Aurangabad
3. Anil Shripatrao Bhuktar,
Age : 50 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Plot No.3, Avanti Apartment,
Amit Nagar, Nandanvan Colony,
Chavni, Aurangabad
4. Dadarao Ramnath Shengule,
Age : 52 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. 30, Sant Eknath Housing
Society, Opp. Akashwani,
Aurangabad ..Petitioners
Vs.
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Principal Secretary,
Higher and Technical Education
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32
2. The Director of Higher Education,
M.S., Central Building, Pune-01
::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2016 00:22:16 :::
2 31-wp11640.odt
3. The Joint Director of Higher
Education, Aurangabad Region,
Aurangabad
4. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada,
University, Aurangabad,
Through its Registrar,
5. Vivekanand Arts, Sardar Dalipsing
Commerce and Science College,
Aurangabad
Through its Principal ..Respondents
--
Mr.A.C.Deshpande, Advocate for petitioners
Mr.K.D.Mundhe, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3
--
CORAM : R.M. BORDE AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : NOVEMBER 24, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
At the request of the learned Counsel for
the petitioners, names of respondent nos.4 and 5
stand deleted.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the
parties.
3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The
petition is heard finally by the consent of the
learned counsel for the respective parties.
3 31-wp11640.odt
4. The petitioners are requesting for
issuance of direction to the respondents for
stepping up their pay so as to bring it at par with
the junior Associate Professor w.e.f. the date of
revision of pay salary as per Government Resolution
dated 12.08.2009.
5. The facts giving rise to the instant
petition need not be stated in detail since those
are undisputed. Even otherwise, the fats are
identical as in the case of Dr. Sudhakar Murlidhar
Lawande and others Vs. State of Maharashtra (W.P.
No.11129/2015) and in the case of Sudamrao
Keshavrao Aher & ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
& others in W.P.No.10283/2012, decided on 21st
November, 2013 [2014(1) ALL MR 697].
6. For the reasons recorded while disposing
of the aforesaid matter presented by Sudamrao Aher
and others, the instant writ petition also deserves
to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed.
4 31-wp11640.odt
7. The respondents shall take necessary
action to step up the pay of the petitioners so as
to bring it at par with the juniors where all the
parameters are same and shall not discriminate only
because the junior teachers have acquired Ph.D.
Degree and are getting higher salary during
implementation of 6th Pay Commission's
recommendations. The salaries of the petitioners
may be refixed and arrears be paid within a period
of six months.
8. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
9. There shall be no order as to costs.
[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.] [R.M. BORDE, J.]
kbp
