Debu S/O Sambha Asai vs Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 733 Bom

WP  586/13                                           1                             Judgment

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                  NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
                        WRIT PETITION No. 586/2013
Debu S/o Sambha Asai,
aged about 66 years, Occ: Retired,
R/o Plot No.112, Suyog Nagar,
Nagpur - 15.                                                                     PETITIONER
                                     .....VERSUS.....

1.    Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj
      Nagpur University, Nagpur,
      through Registrar.
2.    Joint Director, Higher Education,
      Nagpur Division, Nagpur.                                                     RESPONDENTS


                       Shri N.A. Padhye, counsel for the petitioner.
                              None for the respondent no.1.
       Shri A.S. Fulzele, Additional Government Pleader for the respondent no.2.


                                      CORAM :SMT.VASANTI  A  NAIK AND
                                                    V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.           

DATE : 15 TH MARCH, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT.VASANTI A NAIK, J.)

By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the

communications and the decisions of the management council and the

Joint Director of Higher Education rejecting the claim of the petitioner for

grant of a pay-scale of Finance and Accounts Officer till the date of his

retirement.

2. While the petitioner was working as an Assistant Registrar in

the respondent no.1-University, the petitioner was appointed as a Finance

and Accounts Officer purely on officiating basis by the order, dated

WP 586/13 2 Judgment

06.12.1996. On 29.10.1997, the petitioner was transferred to the

Development Section as an officiating Deputy Registrar and the petitioner

worked on the post of Deputy Registrar on officiating basis till he attained

the age of superannuation on 30.04.2004. Earlier, the post of Finance

and Accounts Officer carried a pay-scale that was somewhat similar to the

pay-scale of a Deputy Registrar but, on 05.01.2002, the pay-scale of the

Finance and Accounts Officer was revised at Rs.14300-18300. The pay-

scale for the post of Deputy Registrar was, however, Rs.10650-15800.

After the pay-revision was made, the petitioner filed an application before

the grievance committee of the university and the management council

recommended that the case of the petitioner be sent to the government

for grant of higher pay-scale of Rs.14300-18300 as was payable to a

Finance and Accounts Officer and if the government did not agree, the

university would pay the same. In the view of the management council,

the petitioner could not have transferred to the post of Deputy Registrar

while he was holding the post of Finance and Accounts Officer on

29.10.1997. The matter went to the Joint Director of Higher Education

and the Joint Director of Higher Education directed that the pay-scale of a

Finance and Accounts Officer should be paid to the petitioner for the

period from 06.12.1996 till 29.10.1997 but, the petitioner would not be

entitled to the said pay-scale after 29.10.1997 till the date of his

retirement. The matter was once again taken up by the Joint Director of

Higher Education and the Joint Director of Higher Education refused to

WP 586/13 3 Judgment

grant the pay-scale of Finance and Accounts Officer to the petitioner as

the petitioner had admittedly worked on the post of Deputy Registrar

after 29.10.1997 and the pay-scale of a Deputy Registrar (Rs.10650-

15800) was paid to him. Since the petitioner was paid the salary in the

said pay-scale, according to the Joint Director of Higher Education, the

petitioner could not have made any grievance. The Vice Chancellor of the

respondent no.1-University, by the impugned communication, held that

the petitioner was not entitled to the pay-scale of a Finance and Accounts

Officer after 29.10.1997 and he was entitled to the pay-scale of a Deputy

Registrar.

3. Shri Padhye, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted

that it was necessary for the Joint Director of Higher Education to have

complied with the decision of the management council. It is submitted

that the Joint Director of Higher Education ought to have granted the

pay-scale of a Finance and Accounts Officer to the petitioner till his

retirement. It is submitted that once the management council had taken

a decision to grant the monetary benefits flowing from the higher pay-

scale to the petitioner from the coffers of the university, the Vice

Chancellor could not have taken a decision that was contrary to the

earlier decision. It is submitted that in the circumstances of the case, the

petitioner would be entitled to the pay-scale of a Finance and Accounts

Officer till the date of his retirement.

WP 586/13 4 Judgment

4. Shri Fulzele, the learned Additional Government Pleader

appearing for the respondent no.2, supported the action of the Joint

Director of Higher Education. It is stated that the petitioner had

admittedly worked as a Deputy Registrar after 29.10.1997 and, hence, he

was not entitled to the pay-scale of a Finance and Accounts Officer. It is

submitted that the decision of the Joint Director of Higher Education is

just and proper and calls for no interference.

5. It is apparent from the admitted facts of the case that the

petitioner would not be entitled to the relief claimed. The petitioner was

temporarily appointed on the post of Finance and Accounts Officer for the

period from 06.12.1996 till 29.10.1997. The petitioner has received the

salary in the pay-scale of a Finance and Accounts Officer for the said

period. It is necessary to note that the petitioner was never promoted to

the post of Finance and Accounts Officer on regular basis and he was also

not promoted to the post of Deputy Registrar and he was only transferred

to the said post and asked to hold the said post on officiating basis by the

order, dated 29.10.1997. The petitioner accepted the order, dated

29.10.1997 without a demur and started working as a Deputy Registrar

on officiating basis. After working on the said post till the date of his

retirement in the year 2004, the petitioner was paid the salary in the pay-

scale that was meant for the Deputy Registrar. Since the petitioner had

worked on the post of a Deputy Registrar, the petitioner was entitled to

WP 586/13 5 Judgment

the salary meant for the said post. Though the petitioner was appointed

as a Deputy Registrar on officiating basis, still the salary payable to the

regular Deputy Registrar was paid to the petitioner. The Joint Director of

Higher Education in the admitted facts of the case rightly held that the

petitioner was not entitled to the salary of a Finance and Accounts Officer

as he had never held the said post after 29.10.1997. The order of the

Joint Director of Higher Education is just and proper and calls for no

interference. We are not inclined, in the circumstances of this case, to

give any undue weightage to the submission made on behalf of the

petitioner that since the management council had earlier taken a decision

to grant the salary to the petitioner from the coffers of the university, the

petitioner should be paid the higher pay-scale that was meant for the

Finance and Accounts Officer. The petitioner had held both the posts

only on officiating basis after 1996 and when the petitioner was holding

each of the posts, the petitioner was paid the salary that was meant for

each of the posts. The petitioner could not have asked for anything more,

which the petitioner wrongly did and the said claim was, therefore,

rightly rejected by the Joint Director of Higher Education as well as the

Vice Chancellor of the university. Since the management council had

taken an absolutely wrong decision in its previous meeting and the

petitioner was not entitled to higher pay-scale, the management council

decided to take a different view in its subsequent meeting and in the

peculiar circumstances of the case, when the petitioner has not pointed

WP 586/13 6 Judgment

out any right in the petitioner to claim a higher pay-scale, it would be a

futile exercise to consider sending the matter to the management council

once again to grant a hearing to the petitioner. It is well settled that

where a remand of the matter for grant of a hearing would be a futile

exercise, specially in the absence of any right in the party to make the

claim, the Courts would be loathe in remanding the matter to the

subordinate Courts, authorities or Tribunals, thereby resulting in the

multiplicity of the proceedings and adding to the pendency in the Courts.

6. Since the order of the Joint Director of Higher Education is

just and proper and calls for no interference, the writ petition is dismissed

with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.

              JUDGE                                         JUDGE

APTE