Dr. Lalitmohan Jainarayan ... vs State Of Maha. Through Secretary, ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 1719 Bom

                                                                                        wp5252.16.odt

                                                      1

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                             NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

                                 WRIT PETITION NO.5252/2016

     PETITIONER:                Dr. Lalitmohan Jainarayan Paliwal,
                                Aged 57 years, Occ : Professor 
                                R/o 104, Himalaya Valley, Hindustan 
                                Colony, Amravati Road, Nagpur - 33.

                                                     ...VERSUS...

     RESPONDENTS:    1.  State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, 
                          Department of Higher and Technical Education,
                          Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400032.

                                2.  The Director of Higher Education, State of 
                                     Maharashtra, Central Building, Pune -1.

                                3.  The Joint Director of Higher Education, 
                                     State of Maharashtra, Nagpur Division, 
                                     Nagpur. 

                                4.  Hislop College, Through its Principal 
                                     Temple Road, Civil Lines, Nagpur - 01.

                                5.  Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur 
                                     University Campus, Through its Controller 
                                     Amravati Road, Nagpur - 33.

     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Shri Rohan Chandurkar, Advocate for petitioner 
              Mrs. A.R. Taiwade, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3
              Shri S.S. Sanyal, Advocate for respondent no.4
              Shri A.S. Agrawal, Adv. h/f Shri P.B. Patil, Adv. for respondent no.5
     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                    CORAM  :  SMT. VASANTI  A  NAIK, AND
                                                                      MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

                                                     DATE    :   13.04.2017 





                                                                                  wp5252.16.odt

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard

finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the

respondent nos.1 to 3 to step up the basic pay band of the petitioner to

Rs.57,860/- as on 01.9.2008 and to revise the pay accordingly within a

time frame.

Shri Chandurkar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner

states that the case of the petitioner stands fully covered by the judgment

of the Aurangabad Bench of this Court dated 21.11.2013 in Writ Petition

Nos.10283/2012 and 888/2013. It is stated that the State had challenged

the said judgment before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but the Special

Leave Petition was dismissed.

Mrs. Taiwade, the learned Assistant Government Pleader

appearing for the respondent nos.1 to 3 does not dispute the factual

statements made on behalf of the petitioner. It is stated after perusal of

the writ petition and the aforesaid judgment that the case of the petitioner

appears to have been covered by the judgment.

In view of the aforesaid, we partly allow the writ petition.

The respondent nos.1 to 3 are directed to take necessary steps to step up

the pay of the petitioner so as to bring him at par with his juniors so that

wp5252.16.odt

he should not be discriminated only because the junior teachers had

acquired Ph.D. Degree while the recommendations of the 6 th Pay

Commission were in force. In terms of the judgment dated 21.11.2013 in

Writ Petition Nos.10283/2012 and 888/2013, we direct the respondent

nos.1 to 3 to refix the pay of the petitioner and pay the arrears to the

petitioner within a period of four months.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order

as to costs.

                   JUDGE                                                             JUDGE




     Wadkar