Mah.Anudanit Ayurved Va Unani ... vs State Of Mah.Thr.Dept.Medical ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 4095 Bom

                                                                                                   wp.3676.06

                                                        1




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

                               WRIT PETITION No.3676/2006

*        Maharashtra Anudanit Ayurved Va Unani 
         Mahavidyalaya Shikshak - Shikshaktar 
         Karmachari Sangh 
         Through its Secretary 
         having its office at 114, Ram Apartments 
         Chhota Tajbagh,  Raghuji Nagar, Nagpur-9.                                      ..PETITIONER.

                                                  VERSUS

1)       State of Maharashtra 
         Department of  Medical Education and Drugs
         Through its  Principal  Secretary
         Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 

2)        The Director of Ayurved 
          Government of Maharashtra, 
          Khanna Construction Building, 
          Thadani Marg, Worli, Mumbai-18.                ..RESPONDENTS                                        . 
...................................................................................................................
          Mr. A. R. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner 
          Mrs. Geeta Tiwari, Assistant Government Pleader for 
          respondent no.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                            CORAM:R.K. DESHPANDE &
                                                                     MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

DATED : 06 th July, 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per R.K.DESHPANDE, J.)

By Government Resolution dated 27.1.2000 the pay-scales

wp.3676.06

of the teachers in Government Medical, Dental, Ayurvedic Colleges

under the Medical Education and Drugs Department were revised with

effect from 1.1.1996. By another Government Resolution dated 13th th

March 2002, the revision of pay-scales by Government Resolution dated

27.1.2000 was made applicable also to the private aided Ayurved/Unani

Colleges. However, the date of implementation was prescribed as 1st st

April 2001, in variation of the date of implementation on 1.1.1996

prescribed in the Government Resolution dated 27.1.2000. This action

is challenged as discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the

Constitution of India.

2. Shri Patil, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

submits that all the terms and conditions of service of teachers in private

aided Ayurvedic/Unani Colleges and the Government Medical, Dental

and Ayurvedic Colleges are similar and the teachers in all such Colleges

are performing the same job and, therefore, there was no justification

for the State Government to postpone the date of implementation from

1.1.1996 to 1.4.2001 by the Government Resolution dated 13th March,

2002. The challenge is to the cut off date specified for implementation

of the Fifth Pay Commission recommendations of revision in the pay-

wp.3676.06

scales.

3. In the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of

Orissa and another vs. Aswini Kumar Dash and others, reported in

(1998) 3 SCC 613, the Apex Court considered the similar controversy in

respect of the cut off date of 1.4.1989. Paragraph nos. 12 and 13 of the

said decision are reproduced below:-

"12. The only other contention relates to the arbitrariness of the cut-off date of 1-4-1989. In this connection, the appellants have pointed out that the resolutions deal with the quantum of grant-in-aid which the State will provide, inter alia, to aided non-government colleges; and the basis on which such grant-in-aid will be provided. For this purpose the State will provide for revised scales of pay as per the University Grants Commission's recommendation. The State Government has framed a scheme for such grants-in-aid looking to its own financial resources and the number of educational institutions to which it will be required to give such grant. No educational institution can claim grant-in-aid as a matter of right. This is a matter of policy which the State Government will decide looking to its financial capacity and other relevant circumstances. There may be, as a result, differences in the pay

wp.3676.06

scales of teachers of colleges affiliated prior to 1.4.1989 and colleges affiliated subsequently, although neither of the resolutions prevent the colleges from giving higher pay scales if they so desire. In this context, the appellants have pointed out that even the extent of grant-in-aid varies from college to college, depending, for example, upon the number of years for which the college has been functioning. Since the entire burden of providing grants-in-aid is now on the State, the State regulates by policy the extent of aid and the colleges to which it will be given.

13. In the present case the State Government has decided to provide grants-in-aid to cover the revised UGC scales of pay for those teachers in existing colleges which have received Government concurrence and university affiliation on or before 1.4. 1989. The date has a direct nexus with the date of the decision to provide for such higher pay scale in the grant- in-aid to be given to the colleges concerned. The date which is so fixed cannot be considered as arbitrary or unreasonable. Colleges which have secured Government concurrence or affiliation from the university after 1.4.1989, therefore, cannot claim any right to the higher grant-in-aid contrary to the policy as laid down by the State. The High Court was, therefore, not right in coming to the conclusion that the Note to Para 2(1) of the Government Resolution of 6.11.1990, was arbitrary and unreasonable."

wp.3676.06

4. The pay-scales have, in fact, been revised but the cut off

date fixed, is of 1stApril,2001. In view of the aforesaid pronouncement of

the Apex Court, in case of State of Orissa and another vs. Aswini Kumar

Dash, it is the policy decision taken by the State Government looking to

its own financial resources and the number of educational institutions to

which it will be required to give such grant. The Apex Court has in fact

observed that no educational institution can claim grant-in-aid as a

matter of right. The Court has held that it is a matter of policy which the

State Government has to decide looking to its financial capacity and

other relevant circumstances.

5. As we see the terms and conditions of service of the

teachers in Government Medical, Dental and Ayurvedic Colleges are

governed by those prescribed in Maharashtra Civil Services Rules,

whereas the terms and conditions of service of employees working in

private aided Colleges are governed by those which are prescribed in

exercise of the statutory powers conferred by the Maharashtra University

of Health Sciences Act. It is not the case where the Government has

refused to apply the revision of pay-scales recommended by Fifth Pay

Commission to the employees working in private aided Colleges. Hence,

wp.3676.06

the decisions relied upon by Shri Patil in the case Haryana State

Adhyapak Sangh and others vs. State of Haryana and others,

reported in AIR 1988 SC 1663 and Secretary, Mahatma Gandhi

Mission and another vs Bhartiya Kamgar Sena and others, reported

in 2017 (1) Scale 325, do not apply.

6. In view of the above, we do not find any substance in this

petition. The Writ Petition is dismissed, with no order as to costs.

                         JUDGE                                JUDGE


sahare