Dr. Pradnya Devidas Deshmukh vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 358 Bom

                                        1
                                                             W.P. 3260-2020

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          WRIT PETITION NO. 3260 OF 2020

Dr. Anuya w/o Ajay Chandorkar                                   ..Petitioner

        Versus

The State of Maharashtra and ors.                               .. Respondents

Mr V.P. Kadam, Advocate for petitioner
Mr A.R. Kale, A.G.P. for respondent-State

                                    - AND -

                         WRIT PETITION NO. 3264 OF 2020

Dr. Shilpa w/o Dadarao Jivrag                                   ..Petitioner

        Versus

The State of Maharashtra and ors.                               ..Respondents


Mr V.P. Kadam, Advocate for petitioner
Mr A.R. Kale, A.G.P. for respondent-State

                                    - AND -

                         WRIT PETITION NO. 3222 OF 2020

Dr. Pradnya w/o Devidas Deshmukh                                ..Petitioner

        Versus

The State of Maharashtra and ors.                               ..Respondents


Mr V.P. Kadam, Advocate for petitioner
Mr A.R. Kale, A.G.P. for respondent-State


                                  CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA AND
                                         SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.

DATE : 7th January 2021

PER COURT :

1. Mr Kadam, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that three

increments are given to the petitioners. However, the petitioners are entitled

for five increments. The petitioners have passed Ph.D. prior to joining the

W.P. 3260-2020

services as Assistant Professors in Senior College. Learned Counsel for the

petitioner relies on the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1273 of

2018 dated 11.2.2019.

2. The learned A.G.P. submits that the proposals are pending for

consideration with the Joint Director, Higher Education, Aurangabad Division,

Aurangabad and the Joint Director, Higher Education would decide the

proposal on its own merits.

3. Considering the fact that the proposals for five increments are

forwarded by the College and pending with the Joint Director, Higher

Education, we direct the Joint Director, Higher Education, Aurangabad

Division, Aurangabad to take decision upon the said proposals expeditiously,

preferably within a period of three months from today. Naturally, the Joint

Director, Higher Education would consider the judgment delivered by this

Court dated 11.2.2019 in Writ Petition No. 1273 of 2018.

2. In case, the Joint Director, Higher Education, Aurangabad decides the

proposals in favour of the petitioners, then benefit as per said order be

accorded to the petitioners.

3. Writ Petitions accordingly disposed of. No costs.

( SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.) ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)

vvr