Bombay High Court
Maroti Tukaram Dhote vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ... on 10 July, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
1007WP3618.15-Judgment 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3618 OF 2015
PETITIONER :- Maroti Tukaram Dhote, aged about 62 years,
occ. Retired, r/o Nihida, at Post Titwa,
Taluka & District Akola.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1. The State of Maharashtra, through
Secretary, Agriculture & Co-operation
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.
2. The Maharashtra Council Agricultural
Education and Research, 132-B, Bhamburde
Bhosle Nagar, Pune 411 007, through
Member-Secretary,
3. Dr.Panjabrao Deshmukh Krushi Vidyapeeth,
Akola, through vice Chancellor, Tq. District
Akola.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs.R.D.Raskar, counsel for the petitioner.
Mrs.H.N.Prabhu, counsel for the respondent No.1.
Mr.Abhay Sambre, counsel for the respondent No.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
ARUN D. UPADHYE
, JJ.
DATED : 10.07.2017
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A Naik, J.)
By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of
the respondent No.3-university dated 29/01/2015, rejecting the prayer
1007WP3618.15-Judgment 2/5
of the petitioner for grant of higher pay scale that is admissible to the
laboratory assistant as per the government resolutions dated
25/02/1994 and 21/09/1999.
2. The petitioner was appointed as a laboratory attendant in
the respondent No.3-university on 03/07/1980. The petitioner retired
on attaining the age of superannuation on 31/05/2013 as a laboratory
attendant. After retirement, the petitioner filed a writ petition seeking
the higher pay scale. The said writ petition was partly allowed and the
respondent No.3-university was directed to take a decision on the
representation of the petitioner. The petitioner's representation was
rejected by the impugned order. The petitioner has challenged the
decision of the respondent No.3-university in the instant petition.
3. Mrs. Raskar, the learned counsel for the petitioner,
submitted that as per the government resolutions dated 25/02/1994
and 21/09/1999, the laboratory assistants were entitled to receive
higher pay scale with effect from 01/01/1986 and 01/01/1996. It is
submitted that though there are 13 laboratory assistants working in the
respondent No.3-university, 9 laboratory assistants are not paid the
salary as per the government resolutions, dated 25/02/1994 and
21/09/1999. It is stated that the petitioner was granted the benefit of
1007WP3618.15-Judgment 3/5
the time bound promotion scheme with effect from 01/10/1994 by an
order passed by the university in the year 2000. It is submitted that
though higher pay scale is granted to the petitioner as per the said
order, the pay scale of the petitioner is not fixed as per the government
resolutions dated 25/02/1994 and 21/09/1999. It is submitted that
merely because the laboratory assistants working in the respondent
No.3-university are not paid the salary in the proper pay scale, the
petitioner cannot be made to suffer. It is submitted that if the university
grants appropriate pay scale to the laboratory assistants working with it,
the petitioner would also be entitled to a higher pay scale as per the
government resolutions of the year 1994 and 1999.
4. Shri Sambre, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3-
university, submitted that the petition is liable to be dismissed on the
ground of laches. It is stated that if the pay of the petitioner was not
appropriately fixed by the university in the year 1986 and 1996, it was
necessary for the petitioner to have filed a writ petition immediately
thereafter. It is stated that the petitioner has filed the writ petition after
his retirement. It is submitted that the government resolutions, on
which reliance is placed by the counsel for the petitioner for seeking the
benefit are applicable only to the laboratory assistants and not to the
laboratory attendants like the petitioner. It is submitted that the pay of
1007WP3618.15-Judgment 4/5
the petitioner was fixed in the higher pay scale i.e. the pay scale of the
laboratory assistants after the petitioner was granted the benefit of the
time bound promotion scheme with effect from 1994. It is submitted
that the petitioner has wrongly relied on the government resolutions of
the year 1994 and 1999 to seek the fixation of the pay scale of the
petitioner in the scale provided in the government resolutions. The
learned counsel sought for the dismissal of the writ petition.
5. It is not in dispute that the laboratory assistants that are
working with the respondent No.3-university are receiving the same pay
scale that is fixed for the petitioner, with effect from 01/10/1994. The
petitioner could not have been promoted to the post of laboratory
assistant and hence by granting the benefit of the time bound
promotion scheme, the petitioner was granted higher pay scale, as was
paid to the other laboratory assistants with effect from 01/10/1994 as
per the order passed in the case of the petitioner in the year 2000. The
grievance of the petitioner is that the laboratory assistants are accepting
a lower pay scale and the pay scale of the laboratory assistants is not
fixed appropriately as per the government resolutions dated
25/02/1994 and 21/09/1999. We are not inclined to accept the case of
the petitioner that the laboratory assistants are not paid their salary in
the proper pay scale as per the government resolutions of the year 1994
1007WP3618.15-Judgment 5/5
and 1999. It would not be for the petitioner to raise a challenge on
behalf of the laboratory assistants, who do not have a grievance about
the fixation of their pay scale. Since the pay scale of the petitioner was
fixed, as was fixed for the laboratory assistants working in the
respondent No.3-university, the petitioner cannot make a grievance
after his retirement that the pay of the petitioner was not fixed in the
proper pay scale. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that
9 posts of laboratory assistants are vacant as on this day but promotion
was not granted to the petitioner or any other laboratory attendants and
the pay scale of the petitioner was also not properly fixed is liable to be
rejected, specially when the submission is made belatedly after the
petitioner retired from service and no grievance whatsoever was made
by the petitioner during his services that he ought to have been
promoted on the vacant post of laboratory assistant.
Since the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted,
we dismiss the writ petition with no order as to costs. Rule stands
discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
