Dr. Ramdas Motiramji Bhute vs The State Of Mah. Thr. Secty., And 3 ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 6540 Bom

        J-wp2940.10.odt                                                         1/16


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


                               WRIT PETITION No.2940 OF 2010


        Dr. Ramdas Motiramji Bhute,
        Aged 55 years,
        Occupation : Service,
        R/o. B-II, 406, "Hani Archana Complex",
        Untkhana, Medical Road,
        Nagpur.                                 :              PETITIONER

                       ...VERSUS...

        1.     The State of Maharashtra,
               Through Secretary,
               Ministry of Education,
               Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

        2.     Director of Education,
               M.S. Pune.

        3.     Joint Director of Education,
               Old Moress College Building,
               Sitabuldi, Nagpur.

        4.     Sindhu Mahavidyalaya,
               through Principal,
               Panchpaoli,
               Nagpur.                                   :      RESPONDENTS


        =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
        Shri Shreyas Khadse, Advocate for Petitioner.
        Shri N.R. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondents.
        =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=




::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2022                    ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2022 08:47:51 :::
         J-wp2940.10.odt                                                             2/16


        CORAM           :      A.S.Chandurkar And Urmila Joshi-Phalke, JJ.

Arguments heard on : 05.07.2022 Judgment delivered on : 12.07.2022

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.)

1. Heard Shri Shreyas Khadse, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Shri N.R. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader

for respondents.

2. The petitioner has challenged the action of

respondent No.3-Joint Director of Education, Nagpur in not

granting two increments to the petitioner as per the

Government Resolution dated 11.12.1999. As per the

contention of the petitioner he had passed B. Pharm.

Examination in the year 1978 and completed his M.Sc. in

Micro Biology in the year 1981. He was appointed as Lecturer

in Micro Biology in September 1983 in the respondent No.4-

College of Sindhu Mahavidyalaya, Nagpur and was Associate

Professor in the said College and was teaching Micro Biology.

It is further contention of the petitioner that he had obtained

Ph.D. in Economics in the year 2005 and therefore he was

J-wp2940.10.odt 3/16

declared as eligible for the award of Ph.D. vide notification

dated 25.10.2005. Accordingly, said notification was issued.

As he had completed his Ph.D. on 25.10.2005, he is entitled

for two increments as per the Resolution of Government of

Maharashtra dated 11.12.1999. But he had not received these

two advance increments as per the said Resolution from the

year i.e. since 26.10.2005.Therefore, he moved representation

to the respondent No.4-Principal, Sindhu Mahavidyalaya on

11.3.2010. On receipt of the said representation respondent

No.3 had asked for certain documents from respondent No.4-

College. Accordingly, respondent No.4-College had forwarded

the said documents to the respondent No.3-Joint Director of

Education. After receipt of said document respondent No.3-

Joint Director of Education by letter dated 6/7.4.2010

informed the respondent No.4-College that the petitioner is

not entitled for the said increments because he had not

obtained Ph.D. in the concerned subject and accordingly

service book of the petitioner was returned back to the

respondent No.4-College.

J-wp2940.10.odt 4/16

3. On receipt of the said communication petitioner had

filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005

for seeking information that under which Rule two increments

was not granted under 5th Pay Commission after obtaining the

Ph.D. before 2006. It was informed to him on 21.4.2010 that

in view of notification dated 3.4.2003, 21.6.2006 and

5.9.2006 as Ph.D. is not of the same subject said increments

could not be granted. As petitioner was not satisfied with the

said decision, he preferred present writ petition for declaration

that the action of the respondent No.3-Joint Director of

Education, Nagpur in not granting the said increments to the

petitioner as per resolution dated 11.12.1999 is arbitrary,

illegal and liable to be set aside.

4. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 in response to the notice

have taken a stand that the petitioner is a Lecturer in subject

of Micro Biology and claimed two advance increments as per

the Government Resolution dated 11.12.1999 on the ground

that he had obtained Ph.D. in Economics and as the petitioner

had obtained the Ph.D. in different subject than the subject he

J-wp2940.10.odt 5/16

is teaching he is not entitled for the said advance increments.

Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the order

passed by the respondent No.3-Joint Director is illegal and

arbitrary has no substance and writ petition deserves to be

dismissed.

5. Heard Shri Shreyas Khadse, learned counsel for the

petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner is entitled for the

advance increments in accordance with the Government

Resolution dated 11th December, 1999. He invited our

attention towards clause (11) which deals with the incentives

for Ph.D./M.Phil. He submitted that in view of clause (11) of

the said Resolution petitioner is eligible for two advance

increments as he acquired Ph.D. degree during his service

career. Said Resolution nowhere states that the candidate

should obtain Ph.D. degree in the same subject which he is

teaching. Therefore, the stand taken by the respondents is not

correct and liable to be rejected.

6. He further submitted that the Resolution issued by

the Government of Maharashtra dated 12th August, 2009 is not

J-wp2940.10.odt 6/16

applicable to him. Even for the sake of argument it is made

applicable to him said Resolution nowhere states that the

petitioner should obtain Ph.D. degree in the same subject

which he is teaching. He submitted that as per clause (7) of

the Resolution dated 12th August, 2009 sub-clause (iv) shows

that teachers who complete their Ph.D Degree while in service

shall be entitled to 3 non-compounded increments if such

Ph.D. is in the relevant discipline and has been awarded by a

University complying with the process prescribed by the UGC

for enrolment, course work and evaluation, etc. in its

Regulation. He further submitted that said Resolution is

applicable w.e.f. 1.1.2006 as petitioner has obtained the Ph.D.

degree in the year 2005 itself. Therefore, said Resolution is

not applicable to him and hence in view of earlier Resolution

he is entitled for the said advance increments.

7. On the other hand, Shri N.R. Patil, learned

Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents submitted

that admittedly petitioner is serving in respondent No.4-

College. He is Lecturer in Micro Biology. Admittedly, he had

J-wp2940.10.odt 7/16

obtained Ph.D. degree in Economics. It is also an admitted

position that he was not teaching Economics in the College.

To understand incentives given for M.Phil and Ph.D. it is

necessary to go back to the 4 th Pay Commission Government

Resolution issued on 27.2.1989 which was issued before this

Government Resolution. The relevant portion of the said

resolution shows that in order to encourage research, in

continuation of post graduate studies, candidates who at the

time of recruitment as Lecturers, possess Ph.D. or M.Phil.

degree (hereinafter called jointly as the "research degrees")

will be sanctioned three and one advance increments

respectively in the Scale of 2200-4000 along with the benefit

of the corresponding year of service for the purpose of

promotion. It further states that the existing Lecturers

without research degrees and those similarly situate recruited

in future will be eligible for a similar benefit in service for the

purpose of promotion as and when they acquire research

degrees, but will not be eligible for advance increments.

Existing Lecturers with research degrees will also be eligible

J-wp2940.10.odt 8/16

for similar benefits.

8. He further submitted that the G.R. dated

11.12.1999 on which petitioner is relying upon also states that

a teacher will be eligible for two advance increments as and

when she/he acquires a Ph.D. degree in her/his service career.

A teacher means he is qualified in the relevant subject and

approved to teach the subject, as petitioner is Lecturer in

Micro Biology and he is demanding incentives for Ph.D. in

Economics, but he is not appointed Lecturer in Economics.

Thus, it is very clear that a Teacher would be eligible for two

advance increments as and when he/she acquires a Ph.D.

degree in her/his service career.

9. Shri N.R. Patil, learned Assistant Government

Pleader invited our attention towards the definition of Teacher

given under the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016. As

per Section 2(61) the definition of Teacher denotes that

"Teacher" means full-time approved professor, associate

professor, assistant professor, reader, lecturer, librarian,

principal, Director of an institution, Director of Knowledge

J-wp2940.10.odt 9/16

Resource Centre, Director of Centre of Lifelong Learning and

Extension, deputy or assistant librarian in the university,

college librarian, Director or Instructor of physical education

in any university department, conducted, affiliated or

autonomous college, autonomous institution or department or

recognized institution of the University. He had also taken us

towards the definition of "Teacher" given under the

Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 in Section 2(34) which

states that "Teacher" means full-time approved professor,

associate professor, assistant professor, reader, lecturer,

librarian [principal, deputy or assistant librarian and

documentation officer in the university, and college librarian],

Director or Instructor of physical education in any university

department, conducted, affiliated or autonomous college,

autonomous institution or department or recognized

institution in the University. He also referred the definition of

"Teacher" given in Section 2(30) of Nagpur University Act,

1974 which states that "Teacher" means a full time Professor,

Associate Professor, Reader, Lecturer, Demonstrator, Tutor,

J-wp2940.10.odt 10/16

Master of Method or Director of Physical Education, if any, in

any conducted, constituent or affiliated College or recognized

institution in the University, and includes any other persons,

imparting instruction or guiding research, whether serving full

time or part time or in an honorary capacity, who are

designated to be Teacher by the Statutes made on the

recommendation of the Academic Council.

10. He further submitted that as per the explanation

above, teacher will be eligible means the teacher who

obtained Ph.D. in the relevant subject. The petitioner is

Lecturer in Micro Biology. He had obtained Ph.D. in

Economic therefore he could not be given two advance

increments for Ph.D. in Economics.

11. Admittedly, the petitioner had obtained degree of

Master in Science and he was a Lecturer teaching Micro

Biology in respondent No.4-College. Subsequently, he started

serving as Associate Professor in the said College and was

teaching Micro Biology to the students of B.Sc. Thus, there is

no dispute in respect of the fact that the petitioner was

J-wp2940.10.odt 11/16

Lecturer in Micro Biology and teaching Micro Biology as an

Associate Professor. Admittedly, the petitioner was not

teaching Economics or any related subject of Commerce. He

relied on Annexure-A which shows that he had registered for

obtaining Ph.D. on 15.2.1999, it shows that at the time of

entering in service he had not obtained the qualification of

Ph.D. He registered for Ph.D. in the year 15.2.1999 for Social

Science faculty. He had chosen the subject Economics and the

topic of the thesis was Economic Analysis of Growth of Urban

Co-operative Banks in Vidarbha Region and its Implications

(Reference period 1989 to 1998) under the guidance of

Professor K.E. Patil Head Department of Economics C.P. &

Berar College. Thus, admitted position is that petitioner had

not registered for Ph.D. in respect of the subject Micro Biology

which he was teaching in the College. If the Government

Resolution dated 11th December, 1999 is perused, the title of

the said Resolution shows that revision of pay scale of teachers

and other measures for maintenance of standards in Higher

Education. The title of Government Resolution itself shows

J-wp2940.10.odt 12/16

provision was made to maintain the standards in higher

education. The petitioner had referred clause (11) of the said

Resolution. Said clause (11) is re-produced here for the

reference :

"11. Incentives for Ph.D/M.Phil.

Four and two advance increments will be admissible to those who hold Ph.D. and M.Phil, degrees, respectively, at the time of recruitment as Lecturers. Candidates with D./Litt/D.Sc. should be given benefit on par with Ph.D. and M.Litt. on par with M.Phil. One increment will be admissible to those teachers with M.Phil. who acquire Ph.D. within two years of recruitment.

A Lecture with Ph.D. will be eligible for two advance increments when she/he moves into Selection Grade/Reader.

A teacher will be eligible for two advance increments as and when she/he acquires a Ph.D. degree in her/his service career."

12. The heading of clause (11) states about the

incentives for Ph.D./M.Phil. If dictionary meaning of

"incentives" is taken into consideration, it says that the

"incentive" means a thing that motivates or encourages

someone to do something'. It is the payment or concession to

stimulate greater output or investment. The purpose of the

J-wp2940.10.odt 13/16

Government Resolution appears to be the revision of pay

scales of teachers and other measures for maintenance of

standard in higher education. The object behind granting the

said incentive is to motivate the person concerned for higher

study which would be beneficial to the institution and also to

the person concerned, so that once the candidate comes back

and joins the institute, the students would be benefited by the

knowledge and expertise acquired by a person. On perusal of

clause (11) it states that four and two advance increments

would be admissible to those who hold Ph.D. and M.Phil.

degrees at the time of recruitment as Lecturers. The implied

intention is that if a person who selected as a Lecturer has

expertise in the concerned subject, it would be helpful to the

students and the concerned candidate would be motivated by

such incentive. The students would be benefited by the

knowledge acquired by the said Lecturer if said Lecturer had

such degree at the time of entering in the service. The

condition imposed in clause (11) is that if any candidate after

entering into service completes Ph.D. within two years he/she

J-wp2940.10.odt 14/16

would get one increment. Thus a candidate would be eligible

for two advance increments as and when he or she acquires

Ph.D. degree in her/his service career. Here service career

means the area of subject in which he/she obtains degree and

pursuing their career in the same subject. The intention

behind said incentives is that the candidate should obtain

higher education which would be beneficial to the students to

gain the knowledge from such expert Lecturer.

13. Though it was not mentioned in clause (11) that the

candidate should be Ph.D./M.Phil. in the same subject at the

time of selection for which he was recruited but implied

intention/expectation is that he/she should achieve expertise

in the same subject which would not only benefit the students

but also the institution. Clause (11) of the Resolution states

that a teacher would be eligible for two advance increments as

and when she/he acquires a Ph.D. degree in her/his service

career. Here the word her/his service career is material.

Needless to say he/she has to achieve the qualification Ph.D.

in same subject relevant to his/her service career. Admittedly,

J-wp2940.10.odt 15/16

present petitioner is selected as a Lecturer to teach Micro

Biology. He had completed his master graduation in Science

and was teaching Micro Biology, whereas he had completed

his Ph.D. degree in Economics. Both subjects Micro Biology

and Economics are two different branches of education,

obtaining the degree of Ph.D. in Economics is only an

achievement for petitioner. Definitely it is not beneficial

either to institution or the students to whom petitioner is

teaching. The petitioner's service career is in Micro Biology.

Said Ph.D. in Economics has nothing to do with the Micro

Biology hence, petitioner had not acquired the same in his

service career. The object behind declaring the said pay scale

of teachers and other measures by Government is for

improving the standards in higher education. Said incentive is

declared by the Government to motivate the candidates to

achieve the expertise in the same subject for which they are

recruited. As petitioner's Ph.D. subject and the subject which

petitioner is dealing with in his service are not connected with

each other, he is not entitled for the said benefits.

J-wp2940.10.odt 16/16

14. As the intention to give benefit to those who secure

Ph.D. in his or her service career is apparent, petitioner had

procured Ph.D. in a different subject and therefore he is not

entitled for the said increments. Thus, the petition is devoid

of merit and liable to be dismissed. Therefore, we proceed to

pass following order :

ORDER

(i) Writ petition is dismissed with no order as

to costs.

(Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.) (A.S.Chandurkar, J.)

okMksns