Bombay High Court
Yashwantrao Chavan Abhiyantriki ... vs Staet Of Mah. Thr. Director 4 Ors on 2 March, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp2103.09.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.2103/2009
PETITIONER :- Yashwantrao Chavan Abhiyantriki
Mahavidyalaya Shikshaketar Karmachari
Sanghatana (Regd. No. NGP. 4267), through
its Secretary, R.S. Bhoyar, aged major, Occ. Service,
R/o 237, Lokmanyanagar, Hingna Road,
Dist. Nagpur - 440016.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1. State of Maharashtra through Director,
Directorate of Technical Education,
Mahanagarpalika Marg, Mumbai - 400032.
2. Principal, Yashwantrao Chavan College
of Engineering (YCCE), Hingana Road,
Wanadongri, Nagpur.
3. Registrar, University of Nagpur,
Maharajbagh Road, Nagpur.
4. Secretary, Nagar Yuvak Shikshan Sanstha,
Atre Layout, Nagpur.
5. The Regional Officer
All India Council of Technical Education
Western Regional Officer, Industrial Assurance
Building, Second Floor, Nariman Road,
Mumbai - 400020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. K.K. Pathak, Advocate for petitioner
Ms. T.H. Udeshi, AGP for respondent no.1
Shri P.D. Meghe, Advocate for respondent nos.2 and 4
Shri R.S. Sundaram, Advocate for respondent no.5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, AND
V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : 02.03.2017
wp2103.09.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
By this petition, the petitioner - Sanghatana seeks a
direction against the respondent no.1 - State of Maharashtra to
implement the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission and pay the
arrears of difference of salary to its Members from 1996 to 2000. The
petitioner - Sanghatana seeks a direction against the respondent no.2 -
Private Engineering College to pay the arrears of difference of salary in
view of the recommendations of the 5 th Pay Commission to the Members
of the petitioner from the year 1996 to 2000.
According to the petitioner - Sanghatana which is an
Association of the employees working in the respondent no.2 - Private
Engineering College, the respondent no.2 had not paid the arrears of
difference of salary as per the recommendations of the 5 th Pay
Commission to the Members of the Association. It is stated that the
petitioner - Sanghatana was making successive representations to the
respondent no.2 and the State Government to grant the benefits of the
recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission to the Members of the
petitioner - Sanghatana from the year 1996 to 2000. It is stated that it
could be gathered from the communication issued by the Principal of the
respondent no.2 - College to the Joint Director of Higher and Technical
Education, Nagpur, dated 19.12.2008 that the respondent no.2 - College
wp2103.09.odt
was ready to grant the benefits of the recommendations of the 5 th Pay
Commission to its employees, as per the decision of the Courts in court
cases. It is submitted that it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
judgment, reported in 2017 (1) SCALE 325 that it would be necessary for
the Colleges and Universities, whether aided or unaided, to pay the
revised pay scales even to the non-teaching staff.
The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the
State Government submitted that the respondent no.2 is a Private
Engineering College and since it is not an aided college, it would not be
the responsibility of the State Government to pay the arrears of difference
of salary to the Members of the petitioner - Sanghatana, as per the
recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission.
The learned Counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that
the claim made by the petitioner - Sanghatana is barred by limitation. It
is submitted that it is well settled that a monetary claim could be granted
only if a party approaches the Court within a period of three years from
the date on which the amount is due and payable. It is submitted that by
belatedly filing the writ petition in April, 2009, the petitioner -
Sanghatana is seeking the benefits of the 5 th Pay Commission
recommendations for its Members for the period from 1996 to 2000. It is
stated that the benefit is made available to the Members from the year
wp2103.09.odt
2000. It is submitted that the Sanghatana is not competent to file the writ
petition and the individual employees have not approached this Court.
On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, it appears
that the objection raised on behalf of the respondent no.2 against the
maintainability of the petition on the ground of laches needs to be upheld.
By a petition filed in April, 2009 the petitioner - Sanghatana is seeking
the monetary benefits for its Members for the period from 1996 to 2000.
If the Members of the petitioner - Sanghatana had started receiving the
benefits as per the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission from 2000
and if they were aggrieved by the non-payment of the monetary benefits
from the year 1996 to 2000, it was necessary for them to have filed the
petition in the year 2001 itself. The petition is filed belatedly in the year
2009. It is well settled that mere making of representations would not
stop the limitation. It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
judgments, reported in 1995 (Supp) 4 SCC 593, 1997 (11) SCC 13,
2009 (3) SCC 281 and 2006 (4) SCC 322 that making of successive
representations is inconsequential while considering 'sufficient cause' as
the said representations would not stop the period of limitation. Also, it is
held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments, reported in 1997
(11) SCC 13, 2007 (9) SCC 274, 1995 (5) SCC 628 and 2008 (8) SCC
648 that even if a claim is found to be sustainable, the monetary relief
wp2103.09.odt
should be granted only for three years preceding the date of approaching
the Court. In the instant case, the petitioner - Sanghatana is seeking the
benefits for its Members from the year 1996 to 2000 by filing the writ
petition in the year 2009. In view of the aforesaid judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, it would not be possible for this Court to grant
the monetary relief in favour of the petitioner - Sanghatana. There is
nothing on record to show as to why the Members of the petitioner -
Sanghatana waited for about nine years in approaching the Court though
they were not paid monetary benefits from the year 1996 to 2000. It is
not in dispute that the respondent no.2 has granted the benefits of the 5 th
Pay Commission recommendations to the employees from the year 2000.
Merely because there were some petitions pending and in those cases the
respondent no.2 had decided to abide by the decision of the Court, it
cannot be said that the petitioner - Sanghatana would also be benefited
by the said decisions. There cannot be a parity between the persons
vigilant and non-vigilant in invoking protection of their rights. It would be
worthwhile to refer to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
reported in 1997 (11) SCC 13, 2007 (9) SCC 274 and 1995 (5) SCC
628 in this regard.
In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the judgments referred to herein above, the monetary relief sought by
wp2103.09.odt
the petitioner - Sanghatana cannot be granted. We, therefore, dismiss the
writ petition with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
