Tejrao Shamrao Patil And Ors vs The Stae Of Maharashtra And Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 3527 Bom

                                  1              WP-2608-06


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                  WRIT PETITION NO.2608 OF 2006

1. Tejrao Shamrao Patil,
   Age : 41 years, Occ. Service,
   r/o. Plot No.13, Gut No.34,
   Bendale Nagar,
   Jalgaon

2. Narendra Sheshrao Patil,
   Age : 41 years, Occ. Service,
   r/o. Plot No.02, Gut No.79,
   Deoramnagar, Jalgaon

3. Vasantrao Ananda Patil,
   Age : 36 years, Occ. Service,
   r/o. Plot No.3, Gut No.31/1,
   Muktai Nagar, Jalgaon

4. Mahesh Shantaram Patil,
   Age : 38 years, Occ. Service,
   r/o. 2/B, Navprabhat Society,
   Behind D.I.C., Jalgaon

5. Ramrao Shamrao Patil,
   Age : 42 years, Occ. Service,
   Plot No.13, Gut No.34,
   Bendale Nagar Jalgaon  

6. Rajesh Ramdas Karhe,
   Age : 35 years, Occ. Service,
   r/o. Brook Bond Colony,
   9-B, Ring Road,
   Jalgaon

7. Sanjay Sudhakar Ladhe,
   Age : 29 years, Occ. Service,
   r/o. Plot No.7, "Sarjai",




 ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017            ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 07:36:03 :::
                                 2             WP-2608-06


   Anupam Housing Society,
   Pimprala, Jalgaon                ..Petitioners

              Vs.

1. State of Maharashtra,
   Through the Secretary,
   Higher and Technical Education
   Department, Mantralaya, 
   Mumbai

2. Directorate of Technical Education,
   Maharashtra State,
   3, Mahapalika Marg,
   Mumbai

3. Joint Director of Technical
   Education (Nasik Region),
   Government Polytechnic Campur,
   Samangaon Road, P.B. No.219,
   Nasik

4. All India Council for Technical 
   Education, 
   Through its Regional Officer,
   Western Region Office,
   Industrial Assurance Building,
   2nd floor, Veer Nariman Road,
   Churchgate,
   Mumbai

5. Sant Muktabai Sansthan, Edlabad,
   Muktai Nagar, Jalgaon,
   through its Chairman 
   Ravindra Pralhadrao Patil

6. Sant Muktabai Institute of 
   Technology, Muktai Nagar,
   Pimprala Road, P.B. No.132,
   Jalgaon, through its Principal         ..Respondents




 ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017         ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 07:36:03 :::
                                           3             WP-2608-06


Mr.S.S.Bora, Advocate for petitioners
Mr.A.S.Shinde, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3
Mr.S.V.Advant, Advocate for respondent no.4
Mr.V.R.Dhorde, Advocate for respondent nos.5 and 6
                        --
                                 CORAM :  T.V. NALAWADE AND
                                          SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ. 
                                 DATE  :  JUNE 22, 2017

JUDGMENT (PER SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.) 

The petitioners, who are serving in

respondent no.6 - polytechnic institute, run by

respondent no.5 Trust, as Lecturers/ Teachers,

have prayed for a mandate against respondent nos.5

and 6 to pay salary and other benefits at par with

their counterparts serving in Government/

Government aided polytechnic institutes as per the

Circular dated 29.09.1995.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners

submits that petitioner nos.1 to 7 were serving

with respondent nos.5 and 6 since 20 years, 18

years, 11 years, 5 years, 14 years, 11 years and 6

years, respectively, at the time of filing of the

petition. As per the Circular dated 29.09.1995

4 WP-2608-06

issued by the Directorate of Technical Education,

Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai, they are

entitled to get pay and perks at par with their

counterparts serving in the Government/ Government

aided polytechnic institutions. However, despite

repeated requests, respondent nos.5 and 6

neglected the legitimate claim of the petitioners

for getting such pay and perks. He submits that

in the similar set of circumstances, this Court in

the case of Teachers Association for Non-Aided

Polytechnics, registered Association of Teachers

of Non-Aided Polytechnics, through its Bhusawal

Unit President, A.V. Anilkumar and others Vs.

Hindi Seva Mandal, Bhusawal through its President

and others, 2003(Supp.) Bom.C.R. 846 has granted

benefits of Circular dated 29.09.1995 to the

petitioners therein, who also were the Members of

teaching and non-teaching staff serving in non-

aided polytechnic institutes. The said judgment

has been confirmed by the Hon'ble the Apex Court

5 WP-2608-06

on 12.04.2002 in Petition for Special Leave to

Appeal (Civil) No.19455 of 2001. He, therefore,

submits that the claim of the petitioners may be

allowed since the dispute involved in this

petition is no more res-integra.

3. The learned Counsel for respondent nos.5

and 6 opposed the claim of the petitioners mainly

on the ground of financial incapacity of

respondent nos.5 and 6 to fulfil the demand of the

petitioners. He further submits that the

petitioners were not having requisite

qualifications for being appointed as Lecturers/

Teachers and therefore, they were not entitled to

get the pay and perks which are meant for

qualified Lecturers/Teachers fit for being

appointed in polytechnic institution. Therefore,

according to him, the judgment in the case of

Teachers Teachers Association for Non-Aided

Polytechnics (supra) would not be applicable to

6 WP-2608-06

the facts of the present case. He, therefore,

submits that the Writ Petition may be dismissed.

4. We have considered the facts of the

present case as well as the decision in the case

of Teachers Association for Non-Aided Polytechnics

(supra). All the grounds of objections as regards

financial incapacity of the Institution, want of

requisite qualification of the Lecturers/Teachers

for being appointed, delay and laches in seeking

implementation of the above-mentioned Circular

etc., have been considered in that case and have

been held in favour of the Lecturers/Teachers. It

is held that when respondent no.6 got recognition

from A.I.C.T.E., a body created by the Act of

Parliament, after examining the qualification of

the teaching staff as well as availability of

infrastructure etc., the defence raised by the

Institution about non-qualified Lecturers/Teachers

would be without basis. It was further held that

7 WP-2608-06

the Management cannot take shelter of financial

incapacity in the matter of payment of salaries

and other service benefits to the Lecturers and

the Teachers. All the points in controversy have

been dealt with in detail in the above-cited

judgment, which have been confirmed by the Hon'ble

Apex Court. Respondent nos.5 and 6 cannot be

allowed to challenge the claims of the petitioners

on those grounds, more particularly when, they

have taken the services of the petitioners as

Lecturers/Teachers.

5. Since the controversy involved in this

Writ Petition has been decided in the abovecited

said case, we allow the claim of the petitioners

for payment of salaries and other service benefits

at par with their counterparts serving in

Government/ Government aided polytechnics in view

of the Circular dated 29.09.1995.

8 WP-2608-06

6. The petitioners have claimed arrears of

the salaries and other allowances from the

respective dates of their initial appointments.

Respondent nos.5 and 6 are bound to fix pay of the

petitioners from the date of the Circular dated

29.09.1995 or the respective dates of their

initial appointments, whichever is later. However,

the petitioners would be entitled to get the

actual monetary benefits only from the period of

three years preceding the date of filing this Writ

Petition. The Writ Petition is liable to be

allowed in terms of prayer clause (C) to that

extent only.

7. The learned Counsel for respondent nos.5

and 6 submits that the order passed today in this

petition, may be stayed for four weeks so as to

enable these respondents to challenge this order.

The learned Counsel for the petitioners strongly

opposed the prayer.

9 WP-2608-06

8. Considering the fact that monetary burden

is going to be placed on respondent nos.5 and 6 by

this order, we are inclined to stay the execution

thereof for four weeks from the date of this

order.

9. The Writ Petition is allowed in the above

terms. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No

costs.

[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.] [T.V. NALAWADE, J.]

kbp