Bombay High Court
Jaiprakash Manikrao Gaikwad And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 18 October, 2016
Bench: R.M. Borde
1 WP-10271-16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 10271 OF 2016
1. Dr. Jaiprakash Manikrao Gaikwad
Age: 52 years, Occu: Service
2. Dr. Balasaheb S/o Uttamrao Jadhav,
Age: 51 years, occu: Service,
3. Dr. Shrinivas S/o Narimalu Keshatti,
Age: 47 years Occu: Service,
4. Dr. Shantamani S/o Gopalkrishna Pillai,
Age: 58 years, occu: Service.
5. Dr. Sunil S/o Deoram Ahirrao,
Age : 51 years, occu: Service
All R/o Shri Shivaji College,
Basmath Road, Parbhani,
Tq. & Dist. Parbhani ...PETITIONERS
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Higher and Technical Educaiton
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai -32.
2. The Director,
High Education, Maharashtra State
Pune.
3. The Joint Director,
Higher Education, Nanded Region,
Nanded.
4. The Principal,
Shri Shivaji College, Basmath Road,
Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani. ...RESPONDENTS
(Deleted as per leave granted by
the Hon'ble Court under order 18-10-2016.
::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 22/10/2016 00:50:08 :::
2 WP-10271-16
.....
Mr. K. M Suryawanshi, Advocate for petitioner
Mr. S. S. Dande, AGP for respondents No. 1 to 3
Respondent No. 4 - Deleted
.....
CORAM : R.M. BORDE AND
K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.
DATED : 18 th OCTOBER, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :- [ Per : R.M. Borde, J. ]
1. Leave to delete name of respondent No. 4 from the array of
respondents.
2. 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 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 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
3 WP-10271-16
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 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 basic pay as "55870+5030 = 60,900".
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 no discrimination only on
4 WP-10271-16
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.
Sd/- Sd/-
[K. K. SONAWANE, J.] [R.M. BORDE, J.]
MTK
