Bombay High Court
Ahalya A.Samtaney vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 24 July, 2017
Bench: A.A. Sayed
WP 1840-1998.doc
DDR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1840 OF 1998
Mrs. Ahalya A. Samtaney
residing at 126/3, Mayur TPS-V,
2nd Road, Santacruz (East),
Mumbai 400 055. ...Petitioner
vs.
1. State of Maharashtra
(Through the Secretary to the
Government of Maharashtra,
Education Department, (Higher
Education), Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32.
2. R.R. Pardeshi,
Joint Director of Education,
Mumbai Region, Mumbai.
3. The Administrative Officer,
Office of the Jt. Director of
Higher Education, Mumbai Region,
Mumbai.
4. Registrar, University of Mumbai,
Mumbai.
5. Hyderabad (Sind) National Collegiate
C/o. K.C. College, Churchgate,
Mumbai 400 020.
6. H. R. College of Commerce & Economics,
Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020.
7. Director of Education,
Pune, Maharashtra State. ...Respondents
1/14
::: Uploaded on - 24/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:24:59 :::
WP 1840-1998.doc
Mr. Abhishek Tripathi i/by Rui Rodrigues for Mumbai University.
CORAM : A.A.SAYED AND
M.S.KARNIK, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 14th JULY 2017
PRONOUNCED ON : 24th JULY 2017
JUDGMENT (PER M.S. KARNIK, J.) :-
The petitioner by this petition prays for a direction to
be issued to the respondents to regularise her pay from 1976
and order for payment of difference in salary. The petitioner is
qualified M.A.,B.Ed. She was appointed as a tutor of English in
Senior College by respondent no.6, H.R. College of Commerce &
Economics. From 15th December, 1974 to 14th March, 1975 she
was working as a Tutor in English in the old pattern (11 + 4) in
respondent no.6's college in grade pay scale of Rs.250-15-400.
The respondent no.4 University approved the appointment of
the petitioner on 15/5/1975. She continued to work as a tutor
in English till 31st July, 1975.
WP 1840-1998.doc
2. By an order dated 31st July, 1975, she was promoted
as a Lecturer of English in Senior College, with effect from 1 st
August, 1975. From 1st August, 1975 to 30th September, 1976
she continued to work as a Lecturer in English in Senior College
in the grade pay scale of Rs.700-50-1600.
3. From June, 1976 the new pattern of 10+2+3 was
introduced as a result of which the petitioner was rendered
surplus in the Senior College.
4. By a Government Resolution dated 11th June, 1976
the Government of Maharashtra laid down the guidelines for
absorption of the lecturers rendered surplus due to the
introduction of new 10+2+3 pattern. The petitioner was
appointed as a full time teacher in English in the Junior College
with effect from 1st October, 1976. The petitioner was
transferred to the Junior College with effect from 1 st October,
1976 in the pay scale Rs.500-900 instead of Rs.700-50-1600 as
the petitioner was rendered surplus. On 3 rd June, 1977, the
WP 1840-1998.doc
petitioner wrote to the respondent no.6 that she had been
continuously working for last two years with the respondent
no.6 college and she wishes to be re-appointed as a full time
Lecturer in the college. By letter dated 14 th June, 1977, the
Principal of respondent no.6 college informed the petitioner that
they were appointing her as a full time lecturer in English in the
Junior College and the salary will remain same.
5. The Government of Maharashtra by a Government
Resolution dated 25th October, 1977 revised the pay scale of
University teachers and school teachers with effect from 1 st
January, 1973. It is the petitioner's case that her salary therefore
stood revised to Rs.700-50-1600 from 1 st August, 1975. By an
order dated 19th June, 1978 the Principal of respondent no.6
college appointed her as a Lecturer in English in the Junior
College. Respondent no.6 further informed her by
communication dated 4th December, 1980 allowing her to
contribute to the provident fund.
6. The respondent no.6 by letter addressed to
WP 1840-1998.doc
respondent no.3 Administrative Officer, Office of the Joint
Director of Higher Education, requested for absorption of the
petitioner in the Degree College with effect from 1 st January,
1994 and to fix her pay in the Degree College on her absorption
in the pay scale Rs.2200-4000 from 1 st December 1993. The
petitioner was given a salary of Rs.3100 in the pay scale of
Rs.2500-4000 from 1st December, 1993 in the Junior College.
The respondent no.6 requested the respondent no.4 to approve
absorption of the petitioner in the Degree College since she
fulfilled the conditions of the Government Resolution dated 27 th
November, 1991. The University of Mumbai by an order dated
31st January, 1994 approved the appointment of the petitioner in
Degree College.
7. Respondent no.6 College by letter dated 16th May,
1995 addressed to the Joint Director Higher Education pointed
out that as the petitioner was appointed as a lecturer and placed
in the grade of Rs.700-1600 from 1/8/1976 to 30/9/1976, she
may be placed in the said grade from 1/10/1976 to
WP 1840-1998.doc
31/12/1985. The reason given was that due to the change in the
system the petitioner was rendered surplus and she was
categorized as P3 teacher. As a result of transfer to the Junior
College, from 1/10/1976 to 31/12/1993 the petitioner was
placed in the grade of Rs.500-900. It was also requested that
with effect from 1/1/1986 she may be placed in the grade of
Rs.2200-4000. The Deputy Director of Higher Education by his
letter dated 9/7/1999 informed the respondent no.6 College
that the petitioner would be getting salary scale of Rs.2200-4000
from 1st January, 1994. The petitioner through her Advocate
requested for regularization of her pay scale. On 2 nd December,
1997, she represented to the respondent no.5 to regularise her
pay scale as her grievance was not redressed.
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner is squarely covered by the Government Resolution
dated 11th June, 1976. According to him the petitioner was
rendered surplus and appointed as a full time teacher English in
the Junior College with effect from 1 st October, 1976, the
WP 1840-1998.doc
petitioner is entitled to protection of her pay. Learned Counsel
for the petitioner invited our attention to the relevant clauses of
the Government Resolution dated 11th June, 1976. The said
Government Resolution is in respect of the ad-interim
arrangements regarding Junior College classes attached to
colleges in the State. Learned Counsel for the petitioner invited
our attention to the Appendix to the said Government
Resolution wherein guidelines for the absorption of the teachers
determined as surplus at college level is mentioned. The
relevant clauses are thus :-
"(i) College teachers who were either confirmed in clear
vacancies or who had completed two years of continuous
service in clear vacancies in a college or college under the
same management, on or before 7th February 1975 ;
(ii) College teachers who were in service on or before 7th
February 1975 and were also in continuous service upto the
end of the academic year 1975-76 and hand completed
more than two years of continuous service in a college or
colleges under the same management, as at the end of the
academic year 1975-76 ;
(iii) College teachers who were in service on or before 7 th
February 1975 and were also in continuous service upto the
end of the academic year 1975-76 in a college or colleges
under the same management but had not completed two
years of continuous service upto the end of academic year
1975-76.
WP 1840-1998.doc
(iv) College tutors/Demonstrators and persons in
equivalent grade (rs.250-400) who were either confirmed in
clear vacancies or who had completed two years of service in
clear vacancies in a college or colleges under the same
management on or before 7th February 1975 and who fulfill
the qualifications prescribed by the University concerned for
appointment as lecturers and are, therefore, entitled to
deemed date of 1st July 1975 ;
(v) College tutors/demonstrators and persons in equivalent
grade (Rs.250-400) who were either confirmed in clear
vacancies or who had completed two years of service in clear
vacancies in a college or colleges under the same
management on or before 7th February 1975 but who do not
fulfill the qualifications prescribed by the University
concerned for appointment as lecturers."
According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner the
petitioner's case falls in Clause (iii). In his submission as the
petitioner was in service on or before 7th February, 1975 and was
in continuous service upto the academic year 1975-76 in the
college of the respondent no.6 Management but had not
completed two years of continuous service upto the end of the
academic year 1975-76, the petitioner's case squarely falls
within Clause (iii). In his submission, therefore, in view of the
Government Resolution dated 25th October, 1977, the petitioner
should have been placed in the pay scale of Rs.700-1600.
WP 1840-1998.doc
9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner invited our
attention to the pay scales prescribed for different categories of
Universities and college teachers. In so far as college teachers
are concerned the following pay scale is prescribed :-
Sr. Present designation Existing Scale of Revised Revised
No. pay Designation Scale of pay
II College Teachers - Rs. Rs.
5. Principal 800-50-1,250 Principal 1,500-60-
1,800-100-
2,000-125/2-
2,500.
6. Principal 700-40-1100 Principal 1,200-50-
1,300-60-
1,900
7. Senior Lecturer 700-40-1,100 700-40-
8. Senior Lecturer 400-30-640-40- 1,100-50-
800 Lecturer 1,300-
Assessment-
9. Lecturer (Junior 300-25-600 50-1,600
Scale)
10. Demonstrator/ 250-15-400 Demonstrator/ 500-20-700-
Tutor Tutor 25-900
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the revised
scales of pay are thus applicable to the petitioner and therefore
she should have been placed in the pay scale of Rs.700-50-1600
from 1st August, 1975.
WP 1840-1998.doc
10. In the submission of the learned Counsel for the
petitioner once the petitioner is entitled to this pay scale, she is
also entitled to the consequential arrears on account of such re-
fixation of pay.
11. Learned AGP on the other hand opposed the
Petition. She invited our attention to the affidavit-in-reply filed
by Shri Appaji Chandrakant Savant, Administrative Officer,
on behalf of the respondent nos.1, 2, 3 and 7. Learned AGP
invited our attention to the letter dated 3 rd June, 1977 sent by
the petitioner to the respondent no.6. In this letter it is
mentioned that she is placing her application for reappointment
as lecturer in English in Junior College. Learned AGP submits
that her appointment in the Senior College was not continuous.
Her service were terminated on 30/9/1976. She was
reappointed in Junior College from 1/10/1976 with an
understanding that her services are likely to be dispensed with if
the post held by her is required to be utilized for absorbing
surplus of the teaching staff. According to the learned AGP the
WP 1840-1998.doc
petitioner is confirmed in Junior College by an order dated
4/12/1980 with effect from 25th July, 1980.
12. Learned AGP further submits that the petitioner is
not eligible for the pay scale as prescribed by the Government
Resolution dated 25th October, 1977. According to her, the
petitioner has based her claim on Clause (iii) of the guidelines of
Government Resolution dated 11th June, 1976 for the absorption
of teachers determined as surplus at the college level. In the
submission of the learned AGP the petitioner is not covered by
Clause (iii). In her submission, the petitioner was admittedly
working as a tutor until 31st July, 1975. It is only from 1st
August, 1975 that the petitioner was appointed as a lecturer of
English in Senior College. Therefore, the very basis of the
petitioner's claim that she is covered by Clause (iii) is fallacious.
13. Having considered the submissions made by the
learned Counsel for the respective parties we are of the opinion
that the petitioner is not entitled for the pay scale claimed by
her from 1976. The entire basis of the petitioner's claim is the
WP 1840-1998.doc
Government Resolution dated 11th June, 1976 more particularly
Clause (iii) of the guidelines for absorption of the teachers
determined as surplus at the college level. Clause (iii) applies to
college teachers who were in service on or before 7 th February
1975 and were also in continuous service upto the end of the
academic year 1975-76 in a college or colleges under the same
management but had not completed two years of continuous
service upto the end of academic year 1975-76. Admittedly
petitioner was appointed as a lecturer of English on 31/7/1975.
The petitioner was working as a tutor of English in the Senior
College with effect from 16th December, 1974 upto to 31st July,
1975. Even the petitioner's appointment was approved by the
respondent no.4 University as a tutor. Thus, on or before 7 th
February, 1975 the petitioner was admittedly working as a tutor.
So far as college tutors are concerned their cases were to be
considered in accordance with Clause (iv) and (v) of the
guidelines. Even as regard the tutors/demonstrators relevant
provisions of the guidelines apart from Clause (iv) and (v) is
Clause (5) of the guidelines. In this view of the matter the
WP 1840-1998.doc
petitioner was appointed as a lecturer of English only with effect
from 1st August, 1975 with the respondent no.6 and therefore is
not entitled for the benefit of Clause (iii) of the guidelines. The
Government Resolution dated 25th October, 1977 and the
revision of the scale prescribes therein are applicable to those
who are working as Senior Lecturers/Lecturer covered by Clause
(iii) of the guidelines. The petitioner was appointed as a full
time teacher in English in Junior College with effect from 1st
October, 1976 in the pay scale of Rs.500-900. As the petitioner is
not covered by Clause (i),(ii) and (iii) of the guidelines she is
not entitled to the scale of Rs.700-50-1600. Apart from the
above, we find that the Petition suffers from delay and laches as
the Petition is filed in the year 1998 making grievance about her
pay scale in the year 1976.
14. There is, therefore, no merit in this Petition. Learned
Advocate for the petitioner indicated that in view of the
pendency of the Petition the respondents have not paid gratuity
amount to the petitioner. Learned AGP on instructions submits
WP 1840-1998.doc
that if the said amount is not paid to the petitioner the same
would be immediately paid to her and in any case within period
of four weeks from today. The petitioner also be paid interest at
the rate of 6% per annum from the date when the gratuity was
due and payable till actual payment is made. Subject to the
above Writ Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
15. Rule to stand discharged.
(M.S.KARNIK, J.) (A.A.SAYED, J.)
