Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra And ... vs Vijay Ratanlal Nagori And Another on 16 September, 2021
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge, S. G. Mehare
*1* 940ra238o17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
REVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) NO.238 OF 2017
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.8565 OF 2016
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
VERSUS
VIJAY RATANLAL NAGORI AND ANOTHER
...
AGP for the Applicants : Shri S.B. Yawalkar
Advocate for Respondent 1 : Shri S.S. Thombre
Advocate for Respondent 2 : Shri M.S. Karad
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
&
S.G. MEHARE, JJ.
DATE :- 16th September, 2021
Per Court :-
1. By this Review Petition, the State is before us
contending that the judgment delivered by this Court (Coram :
R.M.Borde and Sangitrao S. Patil, JJ.) dated 18.11.2016 in Writ
Petition No.8565/2016, was primarily based on the contention
that the petitioner in the petition (Prof. Vijay Ratanlal Nagori)
was senior to Dr.Mrs.A.S.Nathrekar. It was further contended
that because she was junior to Dr.Nagori and was earning higher
pay scale, Note-6 under Appendix I, which is an accompaniment
to the Government Resolution dated 12.08.2009 pertaining to
*2* 940ra238o17
revision of pay scale of teachers and equivalent cadres in higher
education as per the UGC Scheme (6th pay commission) in the
Universities, affiliated colleges, Government colleges, Institutes
of Science, etc. providing stepping up of salary scale of seniors
so as to match the higher salary scale of juniors, would become
applicable.
2. While hearing this Review Petition, we had an
occasion to peruse the extract of the service book of Dr.Nagori.
He was appointed as a lecturer in the Commerce Faculty on
01.07.1991. Per contra, Dr.Mrs.Nathrekar was appointed as a
lecturer on 01.09.1983. She had, therefore, been in service for
almost 08 years ahead of Dr.Nagori and was naturally senior to
him by 08 years and pay scale.
3. The issue is as to whether, Dr.Nathrekar acquired
rise in pay on the basis of two increments additionally awarded
to her since she acquired her Ph.D. on 11.04.2007 or on account
of being promoted to the post of the Reader. If her scale is
increased on account of acquiring Ph.D. qualification, which
fetches a reward of two additional increments, her rise in pay
would not be covered by Note-6, which provides for stepping up
of salary scale of Dr.Nagori, who claimed to be senior to her
*3* 940ra238o17
after becoming a Reader in 2006. If Dr.Nathrekar has been
benefited with rise in pay scale on account of her promotion as a
Reader on 04.04.2007, which increased her salary scale above
Dr.Nagori, Note-6 could be applicable. Two additional
increments on account of acquiring Ph.D. would not be the
ground for stepping up of salary of Dr.Nagori since Note-6
specifically speaks about a junior person being promoted to the
higher post thereby, increasing salary of such person beyond the
salary of a senior teacher.
4. The above aspects were apparently not considered
by this Court when the judgment dated 18.11.2016 was delivered
as the said judgment was purely based on a conclusion drawn by
the coordinate Bench in Writ Petition No.10283/2012 primarily
on the contention of Dr.Nagori that he has been senior to
Dr.Nathrekar.
5. In view of the above, this Review Petition is
allowed. We recall the judgment dated 18.11.2016 and restore
Writ Petition No.8565/2016 on the file of this Court.
6. Considering the issue involved, we are listing Writ
Petition No.8565/2016 on 14.10.2019, to be heard finally at
admission stage. This petition would be called out after the
*4* 940ra238o17
urgent admission board is over. Needless to state, in the event we
come to the conclusion that Dr.Nagori was entitled for stepping
up under Note-6, such conclusion would be applicable with
retrospective effect.
kps (S.G. MEHARE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
