Pramod S/O Pralhad Tagalpallewar vs State Of Maharashtra Through ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 2019 Bom

 2604WP1276.13-Judgment                                                                         1/6


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


                      WRIT PETITION  NO. 1276  OF    2013


 PETITIONER :-                        Pramod   s/o   Pralhad   Tagalpallewar,   Aged
                                      about   55   years,  Residetn   of  Prabhu   Niwas,
                                      Plot   No.36,   Padiwal   Layout,   Asegaonkar
                                      Nagar, Near Ganpati Mandir, Pusad, District
                                      Yeotmal. 

                                         ...VERSUS... 

 RESPONDENTS :-                  1. State of Maharashtra through its Secretary,
                                    Department   of   Higher   and   Technical
                                    Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 

                                 2. The   Principal,   Dr.   N.P.Hirani   Institute   of
                                    Polytechnic, Pusad, District Yeotmal.  

                                 3. The   President,   Janta   Shikshan   Prasarak
                                    Mandal, Pusad, District Yeotmal. 

                                 4. The   Joint   Director,   Technical   Education,
                                    Regional   Office,   Government   Polytechnic
                                    Campus, Amravati. 


 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Mr.R.M.Vaidya, counsel h/f Mr.Anand Parchure, 
                                 counsel for the petitioner.
     Ms N.P.Mehta, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 and 4. 
             Mr.J.B. Kasat, counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

DATED : 26.04.2017

2604WP1276.13-Judgment 2/6

O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A Naik, J.)

By this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a direction

against the respondent-college to pay the dearness allowance to the

petitioner as per the pay scale in terms of the recommendations of the

5th and 6th Pay Commissions. The petitioner has sought a direction

against the respondents to grant seniority to the petitioner by preparing

a combined seniority list of the teaching staff in the college. The

petitioner has also sought a direction against the respondents to grant

selection grade pay scale to the petitioner.

2. The petitioner was appointed as a lecturer to teach the

subject of chemistry in the polytechnic college of the respondent-

management in the year 1986. The services of the petitioner were

terminated and the order of the termination was challenged in Writ

Petition No.1458 of 2006. In the said writ petition, the parties

compromised the matter and the respondent-management undertook to

reinstate the petitioner with effect from 01/04/2008 with continuity of

service but without back wages. The management agreed to place the

petitioner in the appropriate revised pay scale as was admissible on the

said date. It is the case of the petitioner that despite the compromise of

the matter in terms of the minutes of order, in Writ Petition No.1458 of

2006, the respondents have not granted monetary benefit of the

2604WP1276.13-Judgment 3/6

dearness allowance or seniority by preparing a combined seniority list

of the employees in the college. It is stated that the respondents have

also not granted selection grade to the petitioner as per the career

advancement scheme.

3. Shri Kasat, the learned counsel for the respondent-

management, submitted that the dearness allowance is paid to the

petitioner and the prayer made by the petitioner in that regard would

not survive. The learned counsel has relied on a document showing that

payment of dearness allowance dues was made to the lecturers and

employees working in the respondent-polytechnic college and the

petitioner had acknowledged the acceptance of the amount paid to him

towards dearness allowance. It is submitted that as per the norms of

the All India Council for Technical Education, the respondent-

management is required to prepare a subjectwise seniority list and not a

combined seniority list of all the teachers appointed for teaching various

subjects in the polytechnic college. It is stated that the petitioner is

placed at Sr.No.1 in the chemistry department of the respondent-college

and he is the head of that department. It is stated that the petitioner

would not be entitled to selection grade as per the career advancement

scheme, as he has not completed two refresher courses that are required

to be completed before seeking the benefit under the career

advancement scheme.

2604WP1276.13-Judgment 4/6

4. Shri Vaidya, the learned counsel holding for Shri Parchure,

the learned counsel for the petitioner, states that it is now learnt by him

that the petitioner has completed the two refresher courses.

5. Shri Kasat, the learned counsel for the respondent-

management, states that if at all the petitioner has really completed the

two refresher courses, as are required to be completed for seeking the

benefits of the career advancement scheme, the petitioner is free to

make an appropriate representation to the management to consider his

case for grant of the benefits of career advancement scheme. It is stated

that if the petitioner has completed the courses and if the petitioner is

eligible, his case would be considered.

6. In the circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to

direct the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to pay the monetary benefits of the

dearness allowance to the petitioner, as some documents are placed by

the management on record to show that the said dues are cleared by the

management. Even if the petitioner disputes the receipt of the same, it

would not be for this court to decide the said issue in exercise of the

writ jurisdiction. As regards the prayer of the petitioner that a combined

seniority list of all the teachers should be maintained by the

2604WP1276.13-Judgment 5/6

management, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not pointed out

any provision that makes it obligatory on the part of the management to

prepare a common seniority list. In fact, a document is produced by the

management on record to show that as per the norms of the AICTE, the

seniority of teachers in various departments of the polytechnic college

has to be maintained separately by considering the subject of the

department. It appears that the petitioner is placed in the Chemistry

Department and since the petitioner is the senior most teacher in the

said department, he is the head of the department of Chemistry in the

polytechnic college. In regard to the last prayer of the petitioner, it is

necessary to mention that though we had adjourned the matter from

time to time at the request of the counsel for the petitioner, till date, the

petitioner has not placed any material before us to point out that the

petitioner has completed the two refresher courses that are required to

be completed for seeking the benefit of the career advancement scheme.

However, if the petitioner has really completed the refresher courses,

the petitioner is free to apply to the management for seeking the benefit

of the career advancement scheme if he is otherwise eligible to claim

the benefit and the management should decide the representation of the

petitioner for grant of benefits of the career advancement scheme, if the

petitioner has completed the refresher courses, in accordance with law.

The respondent-management should also make an endeavour to clear

2604WP1276.13-Judgment 6/6

the arrears of salary of the petitioner and the other employees as early

as possible as it is admitted by the respondent-management that the

salary of the petitioner as also the other teachers is not paid after

December, 2015. After every two months, the respondent-management

should try to pay certain amount to the employees to clear the arrears

of salary payable to the petitioner as also the other employees.

7. Hence, with the aforesaid observations and directions, we

dispose of the writ petition with no order as to costs. Rule stands

discharged.

                        JUDGE                                               JUDGE 


 KHUNTE