Vinod S/O Narayan Vilayatkar And ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 17400 Bom

                                                                              1.wp1515.2020.odt
                                            1/3



                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
                          WRIT PETITION NO. 1515 OF 2020
                          Vinod s/o Narayan Vilayatkar and others
                                           Vs.
                              State of Maharashtra and others
__________________________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions              Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.
                           Shri R.L. Khapre, Senior Advocate a/by Shri A.S. Shukla,
                           Advocate for petitioners.
                           Shri A.S. Fulzele, Addl. GP for respondents/State.
                           Shri F.T. Mirza, Advocate for respondent Nos.4 & 5.
                           Shri Nitin P. Lambat, Advocate for respondent No.6.


                           CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
                                   ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ.

DATE : 14.12.2021

Heard Shri Mirza, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 & 5 and Shri Khapre, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners.

2. There is a preliminary objection for maintainability of this petition. The objection so taken by Shri Mirza, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 & 5 rests on three grounds: (1) the petition does not state any law from which the entitlement to receive the salary as per the recommendations of various pay commission flows, (2) there is no public law element involved in this petition and (3) alternate remedy in the nature of

1.wp1515.2020.odt

Grievances Committee itself, constituted as per Section 79 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016, is available for redressal of grievance is raised in this petition.

3. All these objections, in our view, are squarely covered by the judgment of the other Bench of this Court is rendered in Bhartiya Kamgar Sena Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2012 (3) Mh.L.J. 872 except for the availability of the alternate forum in the nature of Grievances Committee. Therefore, so far as the objections relating to non-involvement of public law element and absence of any pleading regarding the law which entitles the petitioner to receive the pay benefits, are concerned, we find no substance in these objections. In fact Rule 16 of the Maharashtra Non-Agricultural Universities and Affiliated Colleges Standard Code (Terms & Conditions of Service of Non-Teaching Employees) Rules, 1984, is very clear on the point. Then, the respondent No.4-College is controlled by AICTE having received its recognition from the AICTE and is affiliated to the University i.e. respondent No.3, and so would be bound by the guidelines and the regulations issued by these authorities from time to time. About the alternate remedy, it may be available, the question raised in this petition involving public law

1.wp1515.2020.odt

element, however, would require its consideration by this Court. We are, therefore, of the opinion that this petition can be entertained by us. Hence, the preliminary objection is rejected.

4. Heard.

5. Rule.

6. Stand over to 17th January, 2022 for hearing on amendment application.

                                 JUDGE                              JUDGE
Prity



                  Digitally signed
                  by PRITY S
        PRITY S   GABHANE
        GABHANE   Date:
                  2021.12.14
                  18:43:59 +0530