Dr. Asha Shivsagar Agnihotri vs The Joint Director, Higher ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 10424 Bom

Judgment                            1               43-W.P.No.2991.2018.odt



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

                 WRIT PETITION NO. 2991 OF 2018


      Dr. Asha Shivsagar Agnihotri,
      Aged about 57 years,
      R/o. Snehal Nagar, Sewagram Road,
      Wardha.
                                                   .... PETITIONER

                            // VERSUS //

1)    The Joint Director,
      Higher Education, Nagpur Division,
      Nagpur.

2)    Yashwant Mahavidyalaya, Wardha,
      through its Principal.

3)    Yashwant Rural Education Society,
      Wardha, through its Chairman.
                                             .... RESPONDENTS
______________________________________________________________
     Mr. N.R. Saboo, Advocate for petitioner.
     Mr. N.S. Rao, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1
     Mr. S.K. Bhoyar, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
______________________________________________________________


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

DATED : 10.10.2022

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Sunil B. Shukre, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Saboo, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.

Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and

Mr. Bhoyar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

Judgment 2 43-W.P.No.2991.2018.odt

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. The petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer on an unaided

post w.e.f. 24.11.1992 by the respondent Nos.2 and 3. In the year

2008, there was an advertisement issued for making appointment to

the post of Lecturer in an aided section. The petitioner applied for the

same and was selected and appointed w.e.f. 21.11.2008. Her selection

and appointment was by following proper selection procedure. The

petitioner claimed benefit of Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) and

in the earlier round of litigation, this Court issued a direction to the

Joint Director, Higher Education, to consider that the service rendered

by the petitioner during the period from 26.11.1992 to 20.11.2008 can

be clubbed together with her later service of aided post. This petition,

being Writ Petition No. 4909 of 2016 was accordingly disposed of by

this Court on 19.01.2017. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 looked into

the issue afresh and by impugned decision, found that clubbing

together of the previous service of unaided post with the later service

of aided post was not possible as, in the opinion of the respondent

No.1, there was a break in service on account of resignation tendered

by the petitioner from the unaided post. Being aggrieved by the same,

the petitioner has approached this Court.

Judgment 3 43-W.P.No.2991.2018.odt

4. According to Mr. Saboo, the learned counsel for the

petitioner, acceptance of resignation is not a fact proved by respondent

Nos.2 and 3 and, therefore, on the ground of tendering of resignation

by the petitioner, her request for grant of benefit of CAS ought not to

have been rejected by the respondent No.1. He also submits that the

petitioner is entitled to the benefit of CAS in terms of UGC Regulation

10.1(g).

5. Mr. Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for

respondent No.1 submits that the impugned order is correct and in any

case, the Government cannot be made to bear the responsibility of any

financial burden which was incurred by the college when the petitioner

had rendered her service as Lecturer on unaided post.

6. According to Mr. Bhoyar, learned counsel for the

respondent Nos.2 and 3, acceptance of resignation of the petitioner is a

fact already established on record and, therefore, the petitioner cannot

be said to be entitled to the relief claimed by her.

7. All said and done, we find that ultimately the whole issue

has a bearing on financial burden which may arise on account of

extension of benefit of CAS to the petitioner if, her service on unaided

post is clubbed together with her service on aided post. Since the

sanction of grant-in-aid is a matter of policy, and there is no policy Judgment 4 43-W.P.No.2991.2018.odt

framed by the Government to also sanction grant-in-aid with

retrospective effect, in any case, no Lecturer of a senior college can

claim as a matter of right that the Government should be directed to

take the financial burden of the period during which the Lecturer

rendered service on an unaided post. Therefore, in a case like this, if

the relief as prayed for is granted by this Court, it would ultimately

lead to making the Government bear the financial burden for the

period for which it is not responsible. If the petitioner thinks that she

is entitled to receive the benefit of CAS by clubbing together both the

services, it is an issue which would have to be sorted out by the

petitioner on one hand and respondent Nos.2 and 3 on the other and if

decision is taken by respondent Nos.2 and 3 that the petitioner is

entitled to club together her both kinds of services, the respondent

Nos.2 and 3 would have to make it clear that for the period for which

the petitioner had rendered her service on unaided post, the whole

liability for making payment of the arrears of salary shall be borne

exclusively by the respondent Nos.2 and 3. Without such resolution in

between the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3, we do not think

that the respondent No.1 i.e. Joint Director, Higher Education, Nagpur

can grant request of the petitioner. In the result, we find no merit in

this petition.

8. The Writ Petition stands dismissed with liberty to the

petitioner to make an appropriate representation to the respondent Judgment 5 43-W.P.No.2991.2018.odt

Nos.2 and 3, if so advised. If any such representation is made within a

period of three weeks, the same shall be decided in accordance with

law, by the respondent Nos.2 and 3, preferably within a period of four

weeks from the date of the order and in doing so, the respondent Nos.2

and 3 shall consider the observations of this Court in the case of

Dr. Pramod S/o Govindrao Yeole Vs. The State of Maharashtra and

others, in Writ Petition No. 6376 of 2015 decided on 07.06.2016.

Rule is discharged. No costs.

                                    (ANIL L. PANSARE, J.)               (SUNIL B. SHUKRE J.)




                         Kirtak




Digitally Signed By:KIRTAK
BHIMRAO JANARDHAN
Signing Date:11.10.2022
17:56