Bombay High Court
Prakash Uddhavrao Taksande vs State Of Maha., Through Its ... on 3 August, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
1 J-WP-5254-15.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.5254 OF 2015
Prakash Uddhavrao Taksande,
Aged about : 51 years,
Occupation - Librarian,
R/o At Aanji Mothi,
Tahsil & Dist. Wardha. ..... PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Department of School Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2. Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Wardha.
3. Yashwant High School,
Waigaon (Nipani),
Through its Head Master,
Waigaon (Nipani),
Tah. & Distt. Wardha. ... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Sachin Khandekar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri M. K. Pathan, AGP for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.3522 OF 2015
1. Sanjay Bhanchandra Agashe,
Aged about : 46 years,
Occu.- Service, R/o New Tapdia Nagar,
Kharab Road, Akola,
Tah. and District-Akola.
2. Manjusha Vilas Atre,
Aged about : 47 years,
Occ-Service, R/o Vrundavan Nagar,
Akola, Tah. and District-Akola.
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 22:58:34 :::
2 J-WP-5254-15.odt
3. Sucheta Kamlakar Ayachit,
Aged about : 48 years,
Occu-Service, R/o Near Ganesh
Mandir, Kaulkhed, Akola,
Tah. and District-Akola. ..... PETITIONERS
...V E R S U S...
1. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Education and employment
department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2. Director of Education,
Pune, Dist. Pune.
3. The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Akola,
Tq. and Dist. Akola.
4. New Era High School,
through its Head Master,
Damle Chowk, Akola,
Tq. and Distt. Akola.
5. Jagruti Vidyalaya,
through its Head Master,
Ranpise Nagar, Akola,
Tq. and Distt. Akola.
6. Dnyanprakash Vidyalaya,
through its Head Master,
Pinjhar, Tq. Barshitakli,
Distt. Akola. ... RESPONDENTS
(Respdt. Nos.4 to 6 are
added as per court's order
dtd.06/05/16)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A. R. Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mrs. H. N. Prabhu, AGP for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 22:58:34 :::
3 J-WP-5254-15.odt
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.3605 OF 2015
Uttam Bajirao Sambhe,
Aged about : 65 years,
R/o "Suyog" Shrikrihna Nagar,
Darwha Road, Yavatmal. ..... PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Department of School Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2. Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal.
3. Lok Nayak Bapuji Ane Vidyalaya,
Yavatmal, Through its Head Master,
Tila Wadi, Yavatmal. ... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Sachin Khandekar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri I. J. Damble, AGP for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5243 OF 2015
Chandrashekhar Bhauraoji Bachale,
Aged about : 43 years,
Occupation - Librarian
R/o Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Colony,
Aarvi Road, Ward No.2,
Pimpri Meghe, Warha,
Dist. Wardha. ..... PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Department of School Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 22:58:34 :::
4 J-WP-5254-15.odt
2. Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Wardha.
3. Yashwant Vidyalay Kelzar,
through its Head Master,
Kelzar, Tlq. Seloo,
Distt. Wardha. ... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Sachin Khandekar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri K. L. Dharmadhikari, AGP for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5546 OF 2015
Vikas Nanaji Nagarkar,
Aged about : 39 years,
Occupation - Librarian
R/o At Gomaji Ward,
NH 07 Road, Hinganghat,
Distt. Wardha. ..... PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Department of School Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2. Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Wardha.
3. Bharat Vidyalay, Hinganghat,
through its Head Master,
Hinganghat, Tlq. Hinganghat,
Distt. Wardha. ... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Sachin Khandekar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mrs. M. S. Naik, AGP for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:-
SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.
DATED :-
03/08/2017.
5 J-WP-5254-15.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Smt. Vasanti A Naik, J.)
By these writ petitions, the petitioners have sought a
direction against the respondents to grant revised pay in the scale of
Rs.9300-34800 (Rs.1400-2600 from 01.01.1986) to the petitioners. By
amending the petitions, the petitioners have challenged the circular of
the Government, dated 14.06.2016 that fixes the pay-scale of a
Librarian at Rs.1400-2300 as per the recommendations of the 4 th Pay
Commission from 01.01.1986.
2. Whether a Librarian would be entitled to the pay-scale of
Rs.1400-2300 or Rs.1400-2600 from 01.01.1986 is the question that
falls for consideration in these writ petitions. For deciding the question
involved in these writ petitions, it would be necessary to note the facts
which have given rise to this controversy.
3. Earlier, the qualification for appointment to the post of
Librarian was either a graduates degree and a degree in Library Science
or a Secondary School Certificate with diploma in Library Science. Thus
two grades of Librarians were created in view of their qualifications.
The graduate librarians with degree in Library Science, were entitled to
the pay-scale of Rs.160-320 and those with a Secondary School
6 J-WP-5254-15.odt
Certificate and diploma in Library Science were entitled to the pay-scale
of Rs.135-290 before the 3 rd Pay Commission recommendations were
implemented by the State Government. Bhole Commission
recommendations (3rd Pay Commission recommendations) were
accepted by the State Government by the Government Resolution dated
21.08.1978. As per the Government Resolution, a Librarian with a
graduates degree was entitled to the pay-scale of Rs.365-760, whereas a
Librarian with a Secondary School Certificate and diploma was entitled
to the pay-scale of Rs.290-540. Another government resolution was
issued by the State on 27.10.1979 that for appointment to the post of
Librarian, it was not necessary to secure a degree in Library Science or a
graduates degree and a person holding a Secondary School Certificate
and a diploma in Library Science would be entitled for appointment to
the post of Librarian. By the said Government Resolution, the
Government decided that all Librarians possessing a Secondary School
Certificate with diploma in Library Science would thereafter be entitled
to the pay-scale of Rs.290-540 only. A government resolution was then
issued on 01.08.1983 upgrading the pay-scale of the Librarian from
Rs.290-540 to Rs.335-580. After the recommendations of the 4 th Pay
Commission were made, the government accepted the same by the
government resolution dated 01.10.1988. As per the recommendations
of the 4th Pay Commission, a Librarian was entitled to the pay-scale of
Rs.1400-2300 from 01.01.1986. The government issued a resolution on
7 J-WP-5254-15.odt
02.09.1989 that the Librarians possessing a degree or diploma and
appointed before 27.12.1979 would be entitled to the pay-scale of
Rs.365-760 (Rs.1400-2300 as per the 4 th Pay Commission
recommendations). Several librarians were aggrieved by the fixation of
the cut-off date of 27.12.1979. According to the said librarians, there
was no propriety in the action on the part of the government in fixing
the cut-off date. In view of the said objection, some petitions were filed
before the Principal Seat and the Benches of this Court. At this stage, it
would be worthwhile to note that as per the Maharashtra Civil Services
(Revised Pay) Rules 1988, the pay-scale of the Librarian was fixed at
Rs.1400-2300 from 01.01.1986 (previous pay-scale of Rs.365-760).
Also, as per the recommendations of the 4 th Pay Commission, the pay-
scale of a Librarian, was recommended at Rs.1400-2300 from
01.01.1986. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, it would be
necessary to consider the cases that came up for consideration before
this Court from time to time, as they would throw much light on the
controversy that is involved in these petitions.
4. Shobhu Shankar Chavan, a Librarian in Maharashtra
Vidyalaya, Barsi filed a petition before the Principal Seat claiming the
revised pay-scale of Rs.1400-2300 as according to him, the government
could not have fixed the cut-off date of 27.12.1979 for entitlement to
the pay-scale of Rs.1400-2300 from 01.01.1986. In the case of Shobhu
8 J-WP-5254-15.odt
Chavan in Writ Petition No.5938 of 1998, this Court directed the
respondents to grant the pay-scale of Rs.1400-2300 to Shobhu. The
Court considered that Shobhu was holding a degree in Library Science
when he was appointed as a Librarian on 16.11.1984 and in view of the
Government Resolution, dated 01.10.1988 he was entitled to the pay-
scale of Rs.1400-2300. After Shobhu's case was decided at the Principal
Seat, Avinash Gaikwad who was also serving as a Librarian sought the
pay-scale of Rs.1400-2300, as was recommended by the 4 th Pay
Commission and accepted by the State Government, by filing a writ
petition. While deciding the petition of Avinash Gaikwad, the Court
relied on the judgment in the case of Shobhu in Writ Petition No.5938
of 1998 to grant him the pay-scale of Rs.1400-2300 after observing that
the pay-scale of a Librarian holding a bachelor's degree in Library
Science could not have been denied to Avinash Gaikwad by applying
the cut-off date. The Court held that merely because Avinash Gaikwad
was not appointed before 27.12.1979, the pay-scale of Rs.1400-2300
could not have been denied to him. Though the writ petition filed by
Shobhu bearing Writ Petition No.5938 of 1998 was allowed and the
pay-scale of Rs.1400-2300 was granted to him, Shobhu filed a second
writ petition bearing Writ Petition No.1622 of 2000 seeking revised pay
with effect from 01.01.1986 in the scale of Rs.1400-2600. The
writ petition was allowed by the order "In view of the judgment
of this Court dated 17.12.1998, the petition is allowed". It is
9 J-WP-5254-15.odt
thus apparent that while deciding the matter in the case of Shobhu in
Writ Petition No.1622 of 2000, this Court did not advert its mind to the
controversy whether Shobhu was entitled to the pay-scale of Rs.1400-
2300 that was granted to him as per the judgment dated 17.12.1998 in
Writ Petition No.5938 of 1998 or whether he was entitled to a higher
pay-scale of Rs.1400-2600. There was no adjudication on any issue
while deciding the second petition filed by Shobhu. Whether Shobhu
Chavan could have filed the second petition bearing Writ Petition
No.1622 of 2000 after his first petition bearing Writ Petition No.5938 of
1998 was allowed and the pay-scale of Rs.1400-2300 was granted to
him was also not considered. In effect, the second petition filed by
Shobhu was not decided by the Court by recording reasons. After
Shobhu's second petition was allowed, the State Government issued a
resolution, dated 05.12.2006 pertaining only to Shobhu and fixing his
pay in the scale of Rs.1400-2600. It is unfortunate that though the
State Government had filed a special leave petition challenging the
judgment in the first writ petition filed by Shobhu bearing Writ Petition
No.5938 of 1998, the State Government did not challenge the
judgment-order in the second writ petition filed by Shobhu bearing Writ
Petition No.1622 of 2000 though a higher pay-scale was granted to
Shobhu in terms of the said judgment.
10 J-WP-5254-15.odt
5. After the writ petitions filed by Shobhu and Avinash
Gaikwad were decided, a bunch of writ petitions came up for hearing at
the Principal Seat. In the bunch of writ petitions filed by Sachin
Divekar and others, the Court held by the order dated 28.04.2011 that
the petitioners in the said writ petitions would be entitled to the revised
pay-scale in accordance with the Rules of 1988. At this juncture, it
would be necessary to remind that as per the Rules of 1988, the pay-
scale of a Librarian was Rs.1400-2300 from 01.01.1986 and hence by
the said order, the pay-scale of Rs.1400-2300 was granted to the
petitioners. On the basis of the order in the second petition filed by
Shobhu Chavan, Sachin Divekar and others filed a review application
seeking a review of the order dated 28.04.2011 with a view to claim the
higher pay-scale of Rs.1400-2600. The said review application was,
however, disposed of after holding that the relief was granted to Sachin
Divekar and others on the basis of the first judgment in Shobhu's case
and the judgment in Avinash Gaikwad's case. With the rejection of the
review application, Sachin Divekar and others were entitled to the pay-
scale of Rs.1400-2300 only.
6. Gangadhar Korde then filed a petition before the Principal
Seat and in his case also, the Court directed, by the judgment and order
dated 30.07.2012 that Gangadhar would be entitled to the pay-scale in
accordance with the Government Resolution dated 01.10.1988.
11 J-WP-5254-15.odt
Consequently, Gangadhar was also directed to be placed in the pay-
scale of Rs.1400-2300.
7. Mrs.Mrunal Pathak filed a petition before the Principal Seat
and by an order dated 21.10.2013, the Court directed that Mrunal
Pathak be paid in the scale, as per the judgment in the case of
Gangadhar Korde. Since Gangadhar Korde was directed to be paid in
the scale of Rs.1400-2300, Mrunal Pathak was also held to be entitled
to the said pay-scale with effect from 01.01.1986.
8. Then came the matter in the case of Sadanand Mali before
the Principal Seat. By an order dated 23.12.2013, the Division Bench
held that the issue involved in the case was covered by the judgment in
the case of Mrunal Pathak and the earlier judgments of the Court and
made the rule absolute in terms of prayer clause (i) and (ii). In the said
writ petition, Sadanand Mali had sought the pay in the scale of
Rs.1400-2600 and by making the rule absolute in terms of prayer clause
(i) and (ii), the said relief was granted to Sadanand Mali. The
controversy whether a librarian would be entitled to the pay-scale of
Rs.1400-2300 or Rs.1400-2600, however did not fall for consideration
before the said Division Bench. In the said case, the Division Bench had
considered whether Sadanand was entitled to the pay-scale of a
degree-holder librarian though he was appointed after 27.12.1979. The
12 J-WP-5254-15.odt
issue before the Court was whether Sadanand was wrongly placed in
the pay-scale of a certificate holder, i.e. Rs.335-680 though he was
entitled to the pay-scale of Rs.365-760, being a degree holder. The
question as to what should be the proper pay-scale of a Librarian as per
the rules, the Government Resolution or the Pay Commission
recommendations or for that matter as to what should be the pay scale
of a Librarian did not fall for consideration before the Division Bench in
the case of Sadanand Mali.
9. Several matters were then filed before the Nagpur Bench for
seeking the pay-scale of Rs.1400-2600 and in Writ Petition No.3739 of
2014, the Court directed that the petitioners pay-scale should be revised
as per the judgment in the case of Sachin Divekar. Consequently, the
petitioner in Writ Petition No.3739 of 2014 was held to be entitled to
the pay-scale of Rs.1400-2300. Same was the fate of the petitioners in
Writ Petition No.53 of 2015. In that case also, all the petitioners were
held to be entitled to the pay-scale of Rs.1400-2300 irrespective of the
dates on which they were appointed as Librarians. In the bunch of writ
petitions bearing Writ Petition Nos.5787 of 2015 and others, that were
decided on 27.11.2015, it was held that the petitioners were entitled to
the pay-scale of Rs.1400-2300 but the issue whether they could be
entitled to the pay-scale of Rs.1400-2600 was kept open. In the
meanwhile, the government issued a circular dated 14.06.2016 that the
13 J-WP-5254-15.odt
pay-scale of the Librarians, as per the 4 th Pay Commission
recommendations should be fixed at Rs.1400-2300. While issuing the
said circular, the government had referred to most of the writ petitions
that were decided by the High Court.
10. In the aforesaid background, the petitioners, who are
working as Librarians claim the pay-scale of Rs.1400-2600 from
01.01.1986. The petitioners have mainly relied on the judgment in the
second writ petition filed by Shobhu and the judgment rendered by the
Division Bench at the Principal Seat in the case of Sadanand Mali. On
the basis of these two judgments, the petitioners are challenging the
circular dated 14.06.2016. On the basis of the two judgments, the
petitioners are also claiming the pay in the scale of Rs.1400-2600 from
01.01.1986.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that in
view of the judgment in the second writ petition filed by Shobhu
Chavan, the petitioners would also be entitled to the pay-scale of
Rs.1400-2600 from 01.01.1986. It is submitted that the State had
issued a government resolution in respect of Shobhu, fixing his pay in
the scale of Rs.1400-2600 from 01.01.1986. It is then submitted by
taking this Court through the judgment in the case of Sadanand Mali in
Writ Petition No.7963 of 2012 dated 23.12.2013 and specifically
14 J-WP-5254-15.odt
paragraph 9 thereof, that the Division Bench had held that once the
government had honoured the qualifications, the government cannot
compel a Librarian who is a graduate in Library Science to work on a
lower pay-scale. It is stated that the Court had considered the
government resolution implementing the judgment in the second writ
petition filed by Shobhu. It is submitted that by the judgment in the
case of Sadanand, the Division Bench had made the rule absolute in
terms of prayer (i) by which Sadanand had sought the pay-scale of
Rs.1400-2600. It is submitted that while issuing the impugned circular
dated 14.06.2016, the State Government has not considered the
judgment in the case of Sadanand. It is submitted that the State
Government has created two sets of pay-scales for the Librarians, one
being Rs.1400-2300 and the other being Rs.1400-2600, as some of the
librarians are receiving the pay in the scale of Rs.1400-2600.
12. On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of the State
Government that before none of the Courts that have decided the
aforesaid writ petitions, the issue whether a librarian would be entitled
to the pay-scale of Rs.1400-2300 or Rs.1400-2600 fell for consideration.
It is submitted on behalf of the respondents by taking this Court
through each of the judgments that the aforesaid issue did not arise in
any of the cases that are decided by this Court. It is submitted that in
the first petition filed by Shobhu bearing Writ Petition No.5938 of 1998,
15 J-WP-5254-15.odt
the State Government was directed to revise the pay of Shobhu in the
scale of Rs.1400-2300. It is submitted that in the second petition filed
by Shobhu bearing Writ Petition No.1622 of 2000 that was decided by
the order, "In view of the judgment of this Court dated 17.12.1998,
petition is allowed", the Court did not decide whether a librarian would
be entitled to the scale of Rs.1400-2600. It is stated that though the
State Government had challenged the judgment in the first writ petition
filed by Shobhu, the State Government had implemented the judgment
in the second writ petition filed by Shobhu Chavan and had passed the
Government Resolution, dated 05.12.2006 in respect of Shobhu only,
thereby fixing his pay in the scale of Rs.1400-2600. It is stated that the
government resolution in the case of Shobhu was hurriedly issued as
Shobhu had filed a contempt petition against the concerned authorities.
It is submitted that this Court had asked the State Government in Writ
Petition No.3494 of 2016 to explain about the government resolution in
the case of Shobhu, dated 05.12.2006 by filing an affidavit. It is stated
that in pursuance of the said direction, the Principal Secretary, School
Education and Sports Department had filed an affidavit in the said writ
petition dated 19.04.2017. It is submitted that it is clarified in the said
affidavit that there was no pay-band in the scale of Rs.1400-2600 as per
the recommendations of the 4th Pay Commission for the post of
Librarian and the issuance of the Government Resolution dated
05.12.2006 in the case of Shobhu was not in accordance with the pay-
16 J-WP-5254-15.odt
fixation norms and the government resolutions. It is submitted that the
issuance of the resolution dated 05.12.2006 in the case of Shobhu was
not correct and if the pay-scale of any Librarian was wrongfully fixed by
the education authorities in the scale of Rs.1400-2600 on the basis of
the same, steps would be taken against those librarians to ensure that
every librarian would be placed in the scale of Rs.1400-2300 only. It
is submitted that not only has the 4 th Pay Commission recommended the
pay-scale of Rs.1400-2300 for the post of Librarian but the said
recommendations have been accepted by the government and by the
Government Resolution dated 02.09.1989, the pay-scale for the post of
Librarian was fixed at Rs.1400-2300 from 01.01.1986. It is stated that
as per the Maharashtra Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988 the
pay-scale of the Librarian is Rs.1400-2300 only. It is submitted that in
most of the decisions rendered by this Court, this Court has rightly
directed the respondents to fix the pay of the librarians, irrespective of
the date of their appointment, in the scale of Rs.1400-2300 as per the
Maharashtra Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988. The learned
Assistant Government Pleaders took this Court through all the
judgments to point out that in most of the judgments, the petitioners
were granted the pay-scale of Rs.1400-2300 on the basis of the
Maharashtra Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988. It is submitted
that in the circumstances of the case, specially when the question
17 J-WP-5254-15.odt
whether the pay-scale of Rs.1400-2300 or Rs.1400-2600 would be
payable to the librarians did not fall for consideration in the second
petition filed by Shobhu and in the case of Sadanand Mali decided on
23.12.2013 on which the petitioners have placed great reliance, this
Court may hold that the petitioners would be entitled to the pay-scale of
Rs.1400-2300 from 01.01.1986 and not Rs.1400-2600. It is submitted
that since the education authorities were facing a problem in view of
the claim made by the librarians to the scale of Rs.1400-2600, the
government was required to issue the circular dated 14.06.2016 which
is clarificatory in nature. It is submitted that the said circular is issued
merely with a view to make it known to the education authorities that
the librarians would be entitled to the pay-scale of Rs.1400-2300 as per
the 4th Pay Commission recommendations. It is submitted that merely
because the State Government had incorrectly implemented the order in
the second writ petition filed by Shobhu Chavan without bringing it to
the notice of the Court that Shobhu would not be entitled to the scale of
Rs.1400-2600 as the said pay-scale is not provided anywhere, the
petitioners cannot be heard to say that in view of the issuance of the
government resolution in the case of Shobhu dated 05.12.2006, the
petitioners would also be entitled to the pay in the scale of Rs.1400-
2600. The learned Assistant Government Pleaders sought for the
dismissal of the writ petitions.
18 J-WP-5254-15.odt
13. After minutely perusing each of the judgments that are
rendered by this Court, starting from the judgment in the case of
Shobhu in Writ Petition No.5938 of 1998, it appears that the issue
whether a librarian would be entitled to the pay-scale of Rs.1400-2300
or Rs.1400-2600 did not fall for consideration before the Court in any of
the writ petitions. In the first writ petition filed by Shobhu, bearing
Writ Petition No.5938 of 1998, Shobhu had sought for the pay-scale of
Rs.1400-2300 with effect from 01.01.1986 though he was appointed as
a librarian after the cut-off date. The judgment in the case of Shobhu,
dated 17.12.1998 reads thus:-
"Rule, Respondent No.1 is a formal party, other
respondents waive service.
By consent rule made returnable forthwith.
Petition has been working as Librarian since
16.11.1984. Petitioner is a Degree Holder. He acquired
Degree in Library Science in 1983. Petitioner is denied
revised scale of Rs.1400 to Rs.2300. The original scale for
the post was Rs.365 to Rs.760.
We have gone through Government Resolution
dated 01.10.1998. In view of the said Government
Resolution petitioner is entitled to revised scale. He holds the
Degree in Library Science. Hence, rule is made absolute in
terms of prayer clause (b). No costs.
Arrears to be paid within 2 months."
After Shobhu's case was decided, Avinash Gaikwad filed a petition at
the Principal Seat and in the said writ petition, it was held that Avinash
19 J-WP-5254-15.odt
would be entitled to the pay-scale of Rs.1400-2300 irrespective of the
date on which he was appointed as a librarian. In the first writ petition
filed by Shobhu and the petition filed by Avinash, the Court was only
considering whether the government was justified in prescribing
different pay-scales for the librarians by applying the cut-off date of
27.12.1979. The aforesaid two writ petitions were allowed after holding
that the pay-scale of Rs.1400-2300 was payable to Shobhu and Avinash
from 01.01.1986 irrespective of the dates on which they were appointed
as librarians. The Court did not approve of the action on the part of the
State Government of prescribing a cut-off date for providing two
different pay-scales to the librarians when their qualifications were the
same. A second writ petition was filed by Shobhu bearing Writ Petition
No.1622 of 2000 claiming the pay-scale of Rs.1400-2600. The said writ
petition was allowed by passing the following order-
"In view of the judgment of this Court dated
17.12.1998, the petition is allowed".
This is the entire order by which Shobhu's second writ petition was
decided. It is surprising that though the State Government had
challenged the judgment in the first writ petition filed by Shobhu before
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the State Government did not challenge the
aforesaid order in the second writ petition filed by Shobhu. All that the
Court observed in the order passed in the second writ petition filed by
Shobhu, is that the petition is allowed in terms of the judgment in the
20 J-WP-5254-15.odt
first petition filed by Shobhu. In the first petition, Shobhu had sought
for the pay-scale of Rs.1400-2300 only. It is difficult to gauge from the
order passed in the second writ petition filed by Shobhu on what basis
Shobhu had claimed the pay-scale of Rs.1400-2600 and what was
considered by the Court while granting the pay-scale of Rs.1400-2600
to him. In any case, while deciding the second writ petition filed by
Shobhu, the Court did not consider as to whether the pay-scale of a
librarian would be Rs.1400-2300 from 01.01.1986 or Rs.1400-2600.
Unfortunately, without bringing the relevant material to the Courts kind
notice, the State issued the government resolution dated 05.12.2006
pertaining only to Shobhu and fixing his pay in the scale of Rs.1400-
2600. It is stated in the affidavit filed by the Principal Secretary, School
Education and Sports Department in Writ Petition No.3494 of 2016 that
the issuance of the Government Resolution dated 05.12.2006 was
incorrect as the pay-scale of Rs.1400-2600 was not available. It is
stated on behalf of the government that only because a contempt
petition was filed by Shobhu seeking action against the respondents for
wilful disobedience of the order in the second writ petition filed by
Shobhu, the government had hurriedly issued the resolution pertaining
to Shobhu, dated 05.12.2006. Be that as it may, since the issue as to
what would be the proper pay-scale of a librarian from 01.01.1986 did
not arise, in any of the writ petitions and the same was not decided by
the Court, we would proceed to consider and decide as to whether the
21 J-WP-5254-15.odt
librarians would be entitled to the scale of Rs.1400-2300 or Rs.1400-
2600.
14. In the bunch of writ petitions filed by Sachin Divekar, the
Division Bench at the Principal Seat had by the order dated 28.04.2011
directed that the pay-scale of the Librarians should be fixed, irrespective
of the dates of their appointment in accordance with the Rules of 1988.
The Rules of 1988 provide for the pay-scale of Rs.1400-2300 from
01.01.1986. Though a review application was filed by Sachin Divekar
and others seeking the pay-scale of Rs.1400-2600, the review
application was disposed of after recording that Sachin Divekar and
others would be entitled to the pay-scale that was granted to Avinash
Gaikwad and to Shobhu, in the first writ petition filed by him. In the
first writ petition filed by Shobhu Chavan and in the petition filed by
Avinash Gaikwad, the State Government was directed to fix the pay of
Shobhu Chavan and Avinash Gaikwad in the scale of Rs.1400-2300
from 01.01.1986. So also, by short orders, the petition filed by
Mrs.Mrunal Pathak and the writ petitions filed at the Nagpur Bench
were disposed of and the State Government was directed to fix the pay
of the petitioners therein, in the scale of Rs.1400-2300 from
01.01.1986.
15. The petitioners have mainly harped on the judgment in the
case of Sadanand Mali. In the case of Sadanand Mali, though Sadanand
22 J-WP-5254-15.odt
Mali had secured a Master's Degree in Library Science, his pay was
wrongly fixed in the scale of Rs.335-680, which was payable to the
Librarians that possessed a Secondary School Certificate and a Diploma
in Library Science. The only grievance of Sadanand Mali before the
Court was that his pay should have been rightly fixed as he possessed a
masters degree in Library Science. In the prayer clause, Sadanand Mali
had however sought for the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 which would be
referable to the pay scale of Rs.1400-2600 as on 01.01.1986. In the case
of Sadanand Mali, the Court was not required to consider as to what
pay scale was applicable for the post of Librarian possessing a degree in
Library Science. The issue whether a Librarian would be entitled to the
pay scale of Rs.1400-2300 from 01.01.1986 or Rs.1400-2600 did not
fall for consideration in the case of Sadanand Mali. By relying on the
judgment in the case of Mrs.Mrunal Pathak that was based on the
judgment in the case of Gangadhar, the writ petition filed by Sadanand
Mali was allowed. Though the rule was made absolute in terms of
prayer clause (i) by which Sadanand Mali had made a prayer for grant
of pay scale of Rs.5500-9000, (Rs.1400-2600 from 01.01.1986), the
Court did not consider the question whether Sadanand Mali was
entitled to the pay scale of Rs.1400-2300 or Rs.1400-2600 as the same
did not arise in the case. By relying on the judgment in the case of
Mrs.Mrunal Pathak in which the pay was granted in the scale of
Rs.1400-2300, the writ petition filed by Sadanand Mali was allowed.
23 J-WP-5254-15.odt
However, as per the prayer in the writ petition, the State Government
was directed to fix the pay of Sadanand Mali in the scale of Rs.5500-
9000 i.e. in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2600 from 01.01.1986. All the writ
petitions that came up for consideration after the aforesaid writ
petitions were allowed by short orders referring to the judgments and
orders in the earlier writ petitions. In almost all the writ petitions filed
by the Librarians after the decision in the case of Sadanand Mali, except
Writ Petition No.7147 of 2013 decided on 01.03.2017, the Librarians
were held to be entitled to the pay scale of Rs.1400-2300 and not
Rs.1400-2600. In all the petitions except Writ Petition No.7147 of 2013
that was decided by the Division Bench at the Principal Seat, the court
had directed the State Government to grant the pay scale of Rs.1400-
2300 to the librarians that had approached this Court with a prayer for
a direction either to grant the pay scale of Rs.1400-2300 or the pay
scale of Rs.1400-2600. It is clear from a perusal of every judgment and
order passed by this Court and referred to hereinabove that in none of
the writ petitions, this court had an occasion to decide as to what
should be the entitlement of the Librarians, whether the librarians
would be entitled to the pay scale of Rs.1400-2300 from 01.01.1986 or
Rs.1400-2600. Since this issue was not decided by this Court and the
same has specifically cropped up in the present petitions, it would be
necessary to decide the same.
24 J-WP-5254-15.odt
16. The 4th Pay Commission had recommended the pay
scale of Rs.1400-2300 for the post of Librarian. The recommendations
of the 4th Pay Commission were accepted by the government and the
government decided to grant the pay scale of Rs.1400-2300 to the
librarians in the State of Maharashtra. The government resolution dated
02.09.1989 provided that the pay scale of a librarian would be fixed at
Rs.1400-2300 as per the recommendations of the 4 th Pay Commission.
After the acceptance of the 4th Pay Commission recommendations, the
Maharashtra Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules of 1988 were brought
into effect. The Rules of 1988 provide that the pay scale of a librarian
would be Rs.1400-2300 from 01.01.1986. If that is so, it is difficult to
gauge on what basis Shobhu Chavan had claimed, and the petitioners
are claiming the pay scale of Rs.1400-2600 from 01.01.1986. There is
no provision in any Act, rules, regulations, government resolution or
circular that provides for the pay scale of Rs.1400-2600 for the
librarians from 01.01.1986. It is difficult to fathom on what basis
Shobhu had prayed for the pay scale of Rs.1400-2600 from 01.01.1986
and on what basis the Court had granted the same to him in the
second petition filed by him. The judgment in the second writ
petition filed by Shobhu Chavan is a one line order, which records
"In view of the judgment of this court dated 17.12.1998, the
petition is allowed." There is nothing in the judgment/
order in the second writ petition filed by Shobhu Chavan
25 J-WP-5254-15.odt
which could give an indication, on what basis the court had directed the
State Government to revise the pay scale of Shobhu Chavan in the scale
of Rs.1400-2600 from 01.01.1986. The judgment/order in the second
writ petition filed by Shobhu Chavan refers to the judgment in the first
writ petition filed by Shobhu Chavan, dated 17.12.1998. It is
conspicuous to note that the judgment in the first petition filed by
Shobhu Chavan does not grant the pay scale of Rs.1400-2600 to him.
On the basis of a short order passed in the second writ petition in the
case of Shobhu Chavan, the librarians in the State of Maharashtra
started asking for the pay scale of Rs.1400-2600 without explaining on
what basis they could seek the said pay scale. In none of the petitions
filed by the librarians after the second petition filed by Shobhu was
decided, except the judgment in the writ petition filed by Sadanand
Mali and Writ Petition No.7147 of 2013, did this court grant the pay
scale of Rs.1400-2600 to the petitioners - librarians. It would be
necessary to reiterate that the 4 th Pay Commission recommended the
pay scale of Rs.1400-2300 for the librarians from 01.01.1986. The said
recommendations were accepted by the State Government and the State
Government decided to grant the pay scale of Rs.1400-2300 to the
librarians. The revised pay Rules of 1988, as also the government
resolution, dated 02.09.1989 provide that the pay scale of the librarian
would be Rs.1400-2300 from 01.01.1986. Only on the basis of the order
in the second writ petition filed by Shobhu Chavan, time and again writ
26 J-WP-5254-15.odt
petitions are filed by the librarians seeking the pay scale of Rs.1400-
2600 from 01.01.1986. Though the State Government had challenged
the order in the first writ petition filed by Shobhu Chavan and had not
succeeded in the attempt, unfortunately, the State Government did not
challenge the order in the second writ petition filed by Shobhu Chavan.
Only because the State Government had issued a government resolution
in the case of Shobhu Chavan on 05.12.2006 fixing his pay in the scale
of Rs.1400-2600 from 01.01.1986, the petitioners cannot claim the pay
scale of Rs.1400-2600 when they are not able to substantiate their case
on the basis of any material, whatsoever. There is nothing on record to
show that the librarians would be entitled to the pay scale of Rs.1400-
2600 from 01.01.1986, except the short order in the second writ
petition filed by Shobhu Chavan and the judgment in the case of
Sadanand Mali, in which the question whether a librarian would be
entitled to the pay scale of Rs.1400-2600 or not, did not fall for
consideration. These are the only orders on the basis of which the
petitioners are claiming the pay scale of Rs.1400-2600 as per the
recommendations of the 4th Pay Commission and in none of these cases
did the question whether the librarians would be entitled to the pay
scale of Rs.1400-2600 did fall for consideration. Neither did the said
question fall for consideration in these writ petitions nor was the same
decided by the court. Despite our repeated query to the counsel for the
petitioners to point out any material on the basis of which the pay scale
27 J-WP-5254-15.odt
of Rs.1400-2600 could be sought by the librarians from 01.01.1986, the
petitioners have pointed out nothing but the orders in the writ petition
filed by Sadanand Mali and the second writ petition filed by Shobhu
Chavan. In the absence of any material whatsoever, to hold that the pay
scale of a librarian should be Rs.1400-2600 from 01.01.1986, the
petitioners would not be entitled to claim the said pay scale. As a
corollary, the petitioners would not be entitled to the pay scale of
Rs.9300-34,800 from 01.01.2006 and their pay could be fixed in the
scale of 5200-20,200 from 01.01.2006. The 6 th Pay Commission had
recommended the pay scale of Rs.5200-20,200 for the librarians and
the State Government had accepted the recommendations of the 6 th Pay
Commission and had decided to grant the pay scale of Rs.5200-20,200
to the librarians from 01.01.2006. As an upshot of the aforesaid
discussion, the petitioners challenge to the clarificatory circular, dated
14.06.2016 should fail.
Since the relief sought by the petitioners cannot be
granted, the writ petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Apte/Choulwar
