Bombay High Court
Dr Vasant Madhaoro Peshwe vs State Of Mah.Thr.Psecr.Mumbai ... on 21 October, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp3939.05.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.3939/2005
PETITIONER: Dr. Vasant Madhaorao Peshwe
(Dead) through L.Rs.
1. Smt. Mandakini wd/o Vasant Peshwe
r/o Peshave Plots (Peshave Complex), Yavatmal.
2. Shri Ajay s/o Vasant Peshwe
ig r/o near Youth Hostel, Aurangabad.
3. Smt. Nilima w/o Narayan Puranik
r/o Puranik Hospital, Near Ayurved College,
Yavatmal.
4. Anuja w/o Gajanan Chinchwadkar
r/o Peshave Plots, (Peshave Complex), Yavatmal.
5. Shri Ashilesh s/o Vasant Peshwe
r/o c/o Dr. Vaze, Sankalpe Hospital, Dharampeth,
Nagpur.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary,
Education and Employment Department,
Mantralaya, Annexe, Bombay - 32.
2. University Grants Commission,
Bahadur Shaha Zafar Marg,
New Delhi - 110 001.
(Deleted)
3. Amaravati University, through its Registrar.
4. Joint Director of Higher Education
Amravati Region, Vidarbha Mahavidyalaya
Campus, Amravati.
::: Uploaded on - 24/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/10/2016 00:31:50 :::
wp3939.05.odt
2
5. Amolakchand Mahavidyalaya,
Yeotmal, through its Principal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for petitioners
Shri A.A. Madiwale, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 4
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, AND
KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.
DATE : 21.10.2016
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, J.)
The learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that
the issue involved in this writ petition stands answered in favour of the
petitioner, in view of the judgments, dated 2.5.2014, 1.8.2012 and the
order, dated 25.7.2016 in Writ Petition Nos.5466/2006, 2630/2010 and
5647/2015 respectively. It is stated that this Court has, after considering
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the minimum pay
scale fixed by the Government Resolution, dated 11.12.1999 was payable
to the employees that were in service as on that date and also to the
employees that had retired before the said date, i.e., in the years 1993
and 1994, for revising their pension. It is stated that it is held by this
Court in the aforesaid judgments that the denial by the respondents to fix
the minimum pay of the petitioners therein at the minimum pay
wp3939.05.odt
prescribed in the Government Resolution would be bad in law. It is stated
that a similar order needs to be passed in favour of the petitioner, on
parity.
We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and
perused the aforesaid judgments as also the documents annexed to this
writ petition. In our considered view, the issue involved in this case
stands covered in favour of the petitioner by the aforesaid judgments as it
is held in the said judgments that the minimum pay, that is, sought to be
fixed from 1.1.1996 as per the Government Resolution would apply to the
employees that are in service and also to the retired employees, for
computing their pensionary benefits. The petitioner, is, therefore right in
submitting that the respondents ought to have considered the minimum
pay of Rs.17,300/- in the case of the petitioner, who had retired as a
Principal and revised the pension of the petitioner accordingly w.e.f.
1.1.1996.
Hence, for the reasons recorded herein above and also for
the reasons recorded in the judgments referred to herein above, we direct
the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioner from 1.1.1996 by
considering the minimum pay to be Rs.17,300/- and revise the pension of
the petitioner accordingly and pay the difference of arrears of pension to
the petitioner, within six months.
wp3939.05.odt
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order
as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
