Dr. Madhav B. Punekar vs The Registrar, Shreemati ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 3903 Bom

jsn                                                                1                  36-wp-539-2017.doc

               IN THE  HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                 WRIT PETITION NO. 539 OF 2017
Dr. Madhav B. Punekar                                                            ...        Petitioner
                    Vs.
1. The Registrar,
Shreemati Nathibai Damodar
Thackersey Women's University
1, Nathibai Thackersey Road,
Mumbai - 400 020. 
2. The Commissioner for Handicapped
Welfare, Social Welfare Office Campus,
Pune - 411 001.
3. The Commissioner,
Social Welfare Department,
Social Welfare Office Campus,
Pune - 412 001.
4. The Jt. Director
Higher & Technical Education,
Mumbai, Mumbai Region,
Elphinstone Technical School
Premises, Mahapalika Marg,
Mumbai - 400 001.
5. The State of Maharashtra 
Thru the Principal Secretary, 
Department of Higher Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.                                                      ...  Respondents
Mr. Sanjeev A. Sawant for the Petitioner.
Mr. R.A. Rodrigues, for Respondent No.1.
Mr. V.N. Sagare, AGP for State.

                                                        CORAM  :  B.R. GAVAI AND
                                                                     RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ.

                                                        DATE      :  3 JULY 2017.







 jsn                                                                2                 36-wp-539-2017.doc

J U D G M E N T :-  (Per Riyaz I. Chagla J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for

hearing by consent of the parties.

2. The Petitioner who is a 70% handicap person has filed the

present Petition before this Court as the Respondents are not releasing

payments of the Petitioner for the period from 1st June 2013 to 1st

May 2014 i.e. for 11 months. It is the case of the Petitioner that the

Petitioner was appointed as Associate Professor and thereafter to the

post of lecturer in Education (Marathi and History) under the reserved

category in SNDT College, Pune in 1988. The Petitioner was

confirmed to the post of lecturer in Education at the Post Graduate

department of Education (Reserved for SC) in February 1997. The

Petitioner was confirmed as lecturer in the college by the Respondent

No.1 and was paid on the scale of a lecturer plus admissible

allowances. Respondent No.1 further confirmed the Petitioner to the

post of lecturer in Education and issued a letter of confirmation issued

to the Petitioner confirming to the post of lecturer, Education PG

Department of SNDT Women's University from 1st March 1999. The

State Government had issued a GR dated 23rd February 2011 thereby

jsn 3 36-wp-539-2017.doc

continuing the services of Associate Professor up to the age of 62 years

and giving benefit to those Professors who are in services. The

superannuation age was accordingly increased up to the age of 62

years of the Professors and they were entitled for payment of salary

for the intervening period. It is the Petitioner's case that the benefit of

the GR issued by the State Government and an order passed by the

Court extending the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years

was not given to the Petitioner. The Petitioner was compelled to file a

Petition before this Court bearing Writ Petition No. 643 of 2013. The

Petitioner had in that Writ Petition sought the benefit of the

superannuation age and extension of retirement age of the Petitioner

from 60 years to 62 years pursuant to GR dated 25th February 2011,

23rd November 2011 and 23rd February 2012 and the order of this

Court. An order came to be passed by the Division Bench of this Court

on 21st February 2014, permitting the Petitioner to file a fresh

representation within two weeks to Respondent No.2 - Registrar /

Committee, SNDT Women's University. Respondent No.2 was directed

to consider the same afresh as early as possible preferably within three

months from the date of receipt of representation. After considering

afresh, the decision / recommendation to be forwarded to Respondent

jsn 4 36-wp-539-2017.doc

No.1 by Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.1 consider the same as

early as possible preferably within four weeks. The Writ Petition was

disposed of on those terms.

3. The Petitioner made a fresh representation to Respondent

No.1 and Respondent No.1 forwarded the same to the State

Government. On 6th June 2014, the State Government extended the

age of superannuation of the Petitioner from 1st June 2013 to 31st

May 2015 giving extension of complete two years to the Petitioner

from the date of his retirement. The Petitioner had accordingly on the

very next date approached Respondent No.1 making a request to

forthwith allow the Petitioner to discharge his duties as Associate

Professor pursuant to the order passed by the State Government.

After joining the services with Respondent No.1, on 4th July 2016, the

Petitioner addressed a communication to Respondent No.1 requesting

Respondent No.1 to release the salary arrears which were due from

June 2013 to May 2014, i.e. intervening period as the Petitioner was

out of employment. In spite of this letter, till date there was no

compliance on the part of Respondents. Thereafter the Petitioner

issued various communications to Respondent No.1 and the State

jsn 5 36-wp-539-2017.doc

Government and request was made for sanctioning the salary of the

Petitioner for the intervening period but there was no response on the

part of Respondents. The Petitioner was not given payment of salary

for the period from June 2013 to May 2015. The Petitioner, therefore,

filed the present Petition challenging the impugned inaction on the

part of Respondents.

4. The counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the issue

involved in this Petition is no longer res integra in view of the

judgment of this Court (Bench at Aurangabad) in the case of Snehal

Arun Borse Vs. the State of Maharashtra & Ors. 1. The said judgment

had followed the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of

Uttar Pradesh Vs. Dayanand Chakrawarti & Ors. 2 and held that the

Petitioners are entitled for the salary for the period for which he was

not allowed to work and that the Respondent in that case was directed

to pay salary to the Petitioners for the extended period of service for

which he was not allowed to work, expeditiously and preferably

within a period of six months from the date of the order. The

Respondents were also directed to calculate pensionary benefits

1 WP No. 9544 of 2014 decided on 19th December 2014. 2 (2013) 7 SCC 595.

jsn 6 36-wp-539-2017.doc

considering the Petitioners to be in continuous services till the

extended date of retirement including arrears for which the Petitioner

may be entitled due to extended date of the retirement. The Writ

Petition was accordingly disposed of.

5. We are of the considered view that the judgment of this

Court at Aurangabad Bench referred above squarely applies and the

present Petition will have to be allowed on the following terms:-

O R D E R

1. The Respondent - Director to release the payment of the Petitioner for a period i.e. 1st June 2013 to 31st May 2014 within four weeks from the date of the order.

2. The Respondents are directed to pay additional amount as and by way of interest @ 18% p.a. on the amount of salary for the period i.e. from 1st June 2013 to 31st May 2014.

3. No order as to costs.

           (RIYAZ I. CHAGLA J.)                                        ( B.R. GAVAI J.)