Bombay High Court
Satish Kawaduji Kakade And ... vs State Of Maharashtra And 3 Ors on 3 July, 2017
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
1 wp3899.02.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 3899 OF 2002
1] Satish Kawaduji Kakade,
aged about 33 years, Occ. Tech. Assistant,
R/o. Congress Nagar, Amravati,
Distt. Amravati.
2] Ravindra Chokhaji Satpute,
aged about 35 years, Occ. Tech.Assistant,
R/o. Vyanktesh Nagar, Wadali,
Amravati, Tq. & Distt. Amravati...... PETITIONERS
...VERSUS...
1. State of Maharashtra,
Department of Higher & Technical
Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,
through its Secretary.
2. The Director of Higher Education,
Maharashtra State, Pune-1
3. Joint Director of Higher Education,
Regional Office, V.M.V. Campus
Amravati, Tq. & Distt. Amravati.
4. The Registrar,
Amravati University, Amravati. ...... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri P.S.Patil, counsel for Petitioners
Shri V.P.Maldhure, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3
Shri V.A.Kothale, counsel for Respondent no. 4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: R. K. DESHPANDE, AND
Mrs. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
rd
DATE : 3 JULY, 2017 .
2 wp3899.02.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT
1] The challenge in this petition is to the order
dated 17.01.2001 passed by the Department of Higher and
Technical Education, Government of Maharashtra, refusing
the placement of the petitioners working as Technical
Assistants in the Department of Chemical Technology,
Amravati University, in the scale of Rs.1640-2900 with effect
from the date of their appointments. The petitioner No.1 was
appointed on 13.08.1997, whereas the petitioner No.2 was
appointed on 25.08.1998.
2] It is not in dispute that on the date of
appointment, the petitioners were placed in the scale of
Rs.1400-2300 and they were substantively occupying two
posts of Technical Assistant in the Department of Chemical
Technology, Amravati University. There is one post of
Technical Assistant (Engineering) in the Engineering
Department of the Amravati University, to which pay scale of
Rs.1640-2900 was applicable. It is not in dispute that the
services of the petitioners as Technical Assistants in the
Department of Chemical Technology are also transferable on
3 wp3899.02.odt
the post of Technical Assistant (Engineering). Thus, the inter
se transfer on the posts in two Departments is permissible.
The petitioners, therefore, claim parity in the scale of pay i.e.
Rs.1640-2900 available to the post of Technical Assistant in
Engineering Department.
3] The Respondent No.4 University, employer of
the petitioners, recommended on 23.09.1998 for grant of
such parity to the Joint Director of Higher Education,
Amravati. It is placed on record at page 32. The Joint Director
of Education also recommended parity to the Director of
Higher Education vide its communication dated 29.05.1999 to
provide such parity to the petitioners. It is placed on record
at page 36. The Amravati University also forwarded its
recommendation to the State Government directly on
05.07.1999, placed on record at page 39. The impugned
order dated 17.01.2001 rejects the proposal without
assigning any reason and it is communicated to the
Registrar, Amravati University, Amravati.
4] The petitioner filed Civil Application No. 2396 of
2010 alongwith the recommendation of the Director of Higher
4 wp3899.02.odt
Education to the State Government made on 13.08.2010, for
grant of such parity. The petitioners claimed direction to the
State Government to take decision in the matter within the
stipulated period. On 09.09.2010, this Court passed an order
as under;
"Heard.
The civil application for direction to the respondent no.1 to
decide the proposal/recommendation submitted by
respondent No.2 Director of Higher Education vide
communication dated 13/8/2010 in respect of the revised pay
scale of the petitioner of the post of Technical Assistant in
Chemical Technology Department of Amravati University is
allowed with a direction to decide the same within a period of
6 months from today"
5] In spite of the aforesaid order and lapse of about
7 years, the State Government has not taken any decision,
atleast placed on record to indicate that the claim of the
petitioners is rejected for any valid reasons. The matter is
pending for about 15 years, but there is no return filed by the
State Government opposing the claim. We are at loss to
know the reason for rejection of the claim, either from the
order impugned or from any response to the petition. The
other respondents have fled affidavits supporting the claim of
the petitioners. We are convinced that the recommendations
are justified and there is no valid reason put forth to deny
such claim. In view of this, we have no alternative but to
5 wp3899.02.odt
allow this petition and issue the appropriate directions.
6] In the result, this petition is allowed and the
following order is passed.
[i] The order dated 17.01.2001 passed by the State
Government rejecting the claim of the petitioners
for placement in the scale of Rs.1640-2900 on
the date of appointment of the petitioners is
quashed and set aside.
[ii] The respondent No.1 State Government is
directed to grant approval to the
recommendations submitted by the respondent
Nos. 2, 3 and 4 for placement of the petitioners
in the scale of Rs.1640-2900 from the date of
appointment of the petitioners and to grant the
petitioners all consequential benefits including
the revision in the said scale made from time to
time on par with those which are made available
to the Technical Assistants in the Engineering
Department of the Amravati University.
6 wp3899.02.odt
[iii] We grant the petitioners, the interest at the rate
of 8% per annum after the expiry of the period of
six months from the order dated 09.10.2010
passed by this Court on all the monetary
benefits available to the petitioners.
[iv] The entire arrears including interest be
calculated within a period of six months from the
date of receipt of this judgment and be paid to
the petitioners.
[v] If such exercise is not carried out within a period
of six months, the respondent No.1 shall be
liable to pay penal interest at the rate of 24% per
annum from the date of this judgment till the
realization of the amount.
Rule is made absolute in these terms. No order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rvjalit
