Bombay High Court
Sahebrao Kisanrao Popalghat And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 15 September, 2017
Bench: R.M. Borde
{1}
wp798817.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.7988 OF 2017
01 Dr.Sahebrao Kisanrao Popalghat,
age: 59 years, Occ: Service,
R/o 'Bhimai', Kanchan Nagar,
Ambad Road, Jalna-431 203.
02 Dr.Suryakant Venkatrao Sonar,
age: 61 years, Occ: service,
R/o Ladaniya Nagar,
Near SRPF Gate No.3,
Jalna 431 203.
03 Dr.Mukund Laxmanrao Kurtadikar,
age: 65 years, Occ: Retired,
R/o Flat No.6, Kalyani-A,
Aditya Garden City, Warje,
Pune-411 058. Petitioners
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Higher and Technical Education,
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32.
02 The Director,
Higher Education,
Maharashtra State, Pune.
03 The Principal,
Jalna Education Societies,
R.G.Bagdia Arts, S.B.Lakhotiya
Arts & R. Bezonji Science
College, Jalna. Respondents
Mr.K.M.Suryawanshi, advocate for petitioners.
Mr.S.G.Karlekar, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 & 2.
Mr.R.T.Deshmukh, advocate for Respondent No.3.
::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2017 01:38:03 :::
{2}
wp798817.odt
CORAM : R.M.BORDE &
SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, JJ.
DATE : 15th September, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R.M.Borde, J.):
1 Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and
heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties.
2 The facts giving rise to the instant petition are identical
to the facts of the matters decided by Division Bench of this Court
on 21st Novembr, 2013, i.e. Writ Petition No.10283 of 2012 and
other companion matters. In paragraph no.15 of the Judgment,
the Division Bench has observed thus:
"15 In the present matter, according to us,
the incentives while implementing 6th Pay
Commission for Ph.D. cannot be so given so as
to give a junior teacher more pay than the
senior who is otherwise equally qualified.
Rather he has more experience and is senior
even in the acquisition of the Ph.D. Degree. All
things given to the same at a given point of
time, junior teacher could not be getting more
salary than the senior only because the junior
has just acquired the Ph.D. Degree. The
Constitution has goal under Article 39(d) that
there should be equal pay for equal work. If the
arguments as raised on behalf of the
Respondents are accepted, the same would
amount to discriminating to teachers only on
the basis of junior teacher having acquired
Ph.D. Degree recently under new Pay
Commission. This would be violative of the
principles as enunciated in Article 16 of the
Constitution and such position cannot be
allowed to be maintained. It is different when
one person is having higher qualifications.
{3}
wp798817.odt
However, it would be discriminatory when both
are having similar qualifications and a person
not only senior in service but also equally
qualified is so discriminated, so as to be put in
disadvantageous position as it was a fault to
have acquired Ph.D. Degree earlier. It is not a
case of keeping t he incentive separate and not
part of pay. If pay fixation of petitioner No.1 (as
at page 60-61 in Paper Book) is seen, on 1st
July, 2008, his basic pay is shown as
Rs.57,260/- while that of Shri S.S.Nighut (See
Page 107) was Rs.55,870/-. Then in the
proforma of Pay Fixation, entry on 22nd
September, 2008 for Shri S.S.Night shows his
basic pay as "55870+5030 = 60, 900". Thus
the increments were merged in the basic. This
would be discriminative between Senior Teacher
and Junior Teacher. Note 5 below Appendix I of
the G.R. needs to be applied that such
discrimination is removed."
3 The factual details of the matter prompting the
petitioners to approach this Court need not be stated. This
petition can be disposed of in view of the reasons set out in the
Judgment cited supra, decided by this Court on 21.11.2013.
4 For the reasons recorded above, the instant petition
needs to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed.
Respondents shall take necessary steps to step-up pay of the
petitioners so as to bring it on par with their juniors and there
shall be no discrimination only on account of the fact that the
junior teacher has acquired Ph.D. Degree after implementation of
6th Pay Commission.
5 Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (A).
Respondents are directed to refix pay/pension of the petitioners
{4}
wp798817.odt
and arrears be paid within a period of three months.
6 Rule is accordingly made absolute. There shall be no
order as to costs.
SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI R.M.BORDE
JUDGE JUDGE
adb/wp798817
