Bombay High Court
Dr. Anita Krushnakant Taksande vs All India Council For Technical ... on 13 January, 2022
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar, Pushpa V. Ganediwala
18jud wp 8100.2019.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION (WP) NO. 8100/2019
Dr. Anita Krushnakant Taksande
Age-41 years, Occupation - Nil,
R/o : C/o Pravin wankhede,
Master Colony Deoli Road, Wardha ..... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1. All India Council for Technical Education,
Nelson Mandela Marg, Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi-70, Through Secretary
2. Joint Director of Technical Education,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur.
3. Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj
Nagpur University, Nagpur
through its Register.
4. Bapurao Deshmukh Foundation,
Wardha, through its Secretary,
C/o Suresh Deshmukh College of
Engineering, Selukate, Wardha.
5. Suresh Deshmukh College of
Engineering, Selukate, Wardha
through its Principal. .... RESPONDENT(S)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Mahesh V. Rai, Advocate for the petitioner
Shri N.P. Lambat, Advocate for respondent no. 1
None appears for respondent nos. 2 and 3
Shri S.K. Bhoyar, Advocate for respondent nos. 4 and 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND
PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, JJ.
DATED : 13/01/2022
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER:- A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.)
SMGate
18jud wp 8100.2019.odt
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
considering the short issue involved.
2. The petitioner who was working as Assistant Professor at
the respondent no. 5-College seeks a direction for being paid her regular
salary for duties discharged by her from September 2016 to April 2018
as per the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Writ
Petition No. 4449 of 2019 pertaining to similarly situated Assistant
Professors from the same College was decided by this Court on
11.12.2019 and directions were issued to pay arrears of salary as per the
recommendation of the Sixth Pay Commission.
4. This fact is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the
respondent nos. 4 and 5. It is, however, submitted that the amount of
Rs.4,57,785/- is due and payable to the petitioner as per calculations of
respondent no. 5.
5. Since we find that the petitioner is similarly situated as the
petitioners in Writ Petition No. 4449 of 2019, we are inclined to issue
similar directions as issued therein for reasons recorded in the said order.
SMGate
18jud wp 8100.2019.odt
6. Accordingly, the respondent nos. 4 and 5 are directed to pay
the regular salary of the petitioner for the duties discharged by her for
the period from September 2016 to April 2018 as per the
recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission alongwith all incidental
benefits. The same would include depositing the amount of Provident
Fund in the account of the petitioner for the aforesaid period. These
directions be carried out within a period of twelve weeks from today.
7. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Digitally signed
by SANDIP
SANDIP MAHADEV
GATE
MAHADEV Date:
GATE 2022.01.14
17:58:59
+0530
SMGate
