Bombay High Court
Vilas S/O. Krishnaji Ramteke vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. ... on 4 August, 2017
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
Judgment wp4395.16
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 4395 OF 2016.
Vilas s/o Krishnaji Ramteke,
Aged 46 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of 638,
Buddha Nagar, Nagpur - 17. ....PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary, Department of
Higher and Technical Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
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. Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur
University, Nagpur through its
Registrar, Civil Lines, Nagpur.
5. The University Grants Commission,
New Delhi, through its Member Secretary,
Bahadur Shah Jafar Marg,
New Delhi - 110002. ....RESPONDENTS
.
-----------------------------------
Mr. B.G. Kulkarni, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. P.S. Tembhare, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Mr. A. Agrawal, Advocate for Respondent No.5.
------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/08/2017 02:03:43 :::
Judgment wp4395.16
2
CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI
AND ROHIT B. DEO, JJ.
DATED : AUGUST 04, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT. (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J)
Heard Shri B.G. Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri
P.S. Tembhare, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Shri A.
Agrawal, learned Counsel for respondent no.5. None appears for respondent
no.4 though served. Considering the controversy involved in the matter and
with consent of the learned counsel present for the parties, Writ Petition is
taken up for final disposal by issuing Rule, making the same returnable
forthwith.
2. Petitioner claims pay-scale of Rs. 12,000 - 18,300 on his
appointment as Deputy Registrar in terms of order of appointment dated
31.12.2002, and a corresponding pay-scale in pay band of Rs. 37,400 -
67,000 with Grade pay of Rs. 9000/- w.e.f. 01.01.2006.
3. Employer of petitioner i.e. respondent no.4 has not filed any reply
Judgment wp4395.16
opposing the petition. Shri Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing for
respondent no.5 is supporting case of the petitioner.
4. Shri Tembhare, learned A.G.P. appearing for respondent nos. 1 to
3 points out that in advertisement published on 17.02.2001, expressly pay-
scale of Rs. 10,650 - 15,850 was mentioned and petitioner accepted the
same. Grievance is made for the first time by filing this petition on
22.07.2016. Hence, the challenge is stale. He further contends that as
petitioner has accepted that pay scale and corresponding pay scale from
01.02.2006, he is estopped from filing a petition of present nature.
5. Shri Kulkarni, learned counsel for petitioner submits that
respondent no.4 Employer has vide communication dated 01.07.2011 and
other similar communications before that has recommended the required
pay-scale for petitioner.
6. After hearing the respective counsel, we find that respondent no.5
University Grants Commission itself has on 27.09.2013 pointed out error
committed by giving wrong pay-scale to petitioner. It then also sought
explanation as to why the procedure prescribed by it was not followed, and a
different selection avenue with dual structure of pay for the post of Assistant
Judgment wp4395.16
Registrar and Deputy Register is being adopted.
7. Learned A.G.P. has further pointed out that the petitioner has
approached this Court in Writ Petition No.741/2014, and he could have very
well made this grievance at that juncture.
8. The challenge in Writ Petition No. 741/2014 was to a
communication dated 24.01.2014, holding appointment of petitioner as
Controller of Examination, invalid. At that juncture, and in that petition
there was no grievance in relation to wrong fixation or then wrong
application of pay-scale. But, then facts show that the petitioner was very
much aware of wrong pay scale extended to him, when he approached this
Court. He was making correspondence and was aware of the stand of
University Grants Commission also. Hence, he could have made a grievance
in relation to that pay scale in Writ Petition No.741/2014.
9. In reply affidavit filed before this Court, respondent no.3 has
pointed out that in that Writ Petition, there was a prayer and a direction was
sought to the State Government to approve the pay fixation of petitioner as
Controller of Examination as per order of appointment dated 11.09.2012.
Judgment wp4395.16
10. In this situation, we find substance in contention of learned A.G.P.
that the prayer is stale.
11. However, the fact that the pay scale as sought for by the petitioner
is applicable to the post, cannot be disputed. In this situation, the petitioner
cannot be given any arrears, however, benefit of fixation in pay scale of pay-
band of Rs. 37,400 - 67,000 with grade pay of Rs. 9000 and pay scale of
Rs.12,000 - 18,300 from the date of his appointment and from 01.01.2006
notionally can be given to him. Accordingly, his salary receivable by him for
the month of August, 2017 shall be worked out, and he shall be given
revised and enhanced salary from 01.08.2017 onwards. However, the
benefit of notional fixation shall not result in payment of any arrears to him.
12. This exercise shall be completed within a period of four months
from today. In view of above directions and observations, Writ Petition is
partly allowed. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms, with no order as to
costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rgd.
