Bombay High Court
Ambaprasad Madhukar Naniwadekar And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary ... on 8 August, 2024
Author: Nitin Jamdar
Bench: Nitin Jamdar, M.M. Sathaye
2024:BHC-AS:32873-DB
903 WP-8348-2021.edited.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 8348 OF 2021
1. Ambaprasad Madhukar Naniwadekar )
Digitally signed
by
Age: 50 years, Occp.: Service )
HUSENBASHA HUSENBASHA
RAHAMAN
NADAF
RAHAMAN
NADAF
Date: 2024.08.16
R/o. 2 'Arya', Mangalmurti Colony )
18:49:16 +0530
By-pass Road, Agarbhag, Jaysingpur )
Tal. Shirol Dist. Kolhapur- 416101 )
2. Prashant Ramchandra Patil )
Age: 45 years, Occp.: Service )
R/o. 34/75, 'Meera' Kalanagar, )
Madhavnagar Road, Sangli- 416416 ) ....Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Maharashtra through the)
Secretary, Higher and Technical )
Education and Employment )
Department, Mantralaya, )
Mumbai - 400032 )
2. The Vice-Chancellor, )
Shivaji University, Vidyanagar, )
Kolhapur-416004 )
3. Registrar, Shivaji University )
Vidyanagar, Kolhapur-416004 )
4. The Secretary, Dr. J.J. Magdum Trust )
Gat No. 118, Shirol Kolhapur )
By-pass Road, Jaysingpur )
Dist. Kolhapur-416101 )
5. The Principal, Dr.J.J. Magdum College)
of Engineering Gat No. 289 (314/330))
Husen 1
::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2024 06:02:16 :::
903 WP-8348-2021.edited.doc
Shirol-Wadi Road, Agarbhag, )
Jaysingpur, Dist. Kolhapur-416101 ) ....Respondents
***
Mr. Suresh Pakale, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Nilesh Desai i/b
Mr. Shankar M. Katkar for Petitioners.
Mr. Uday P. Warunjikar a/w. Mr. Sumit Kate, for Respondent No. 4
and 5.
Mr. Vikram N. Walawalkar for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (Shivaji
University).
Mr. S B Kalel, AGP for the Respondent-State.
***
CORAM: NITIN JAMDAR &
M.M. SATHAYE, JJ.
DATE : 8 AUGUST 2024
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Nitin Jamdar, J.)
Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service.
Taken up for final disposal.
2. The Petitioners are working with Respondent No.5 College,
run by Respondent No.4 Education Trust. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3
are the Vice Chancellor and Registrar of the Shivaji University.
Respondent Nos. 1 is State through Secretary, Higher and Technical
Education and Employment Department, Mumbai.
3. Petitioners were appointed as Lecturers in Mechanical
Engineering on 10 September 1999. They were qualified for the post
903 WP-8348-2021.edited.doc
of Lecturer and were duly selected by the Selection Committee of the
Respondent University. The Respondent University granted approval
to the selection of the Petitioners. On 1 August 2000, the 5 th pay
scale of Rs. 8000-275-13500 applicable to the post of Lecturer was
given to the Petitioners, and they were placed on the basic scale of
Rs. 8000/- applicable to the post of Lecturer. Petitioner No. 1
completed his Masters in Engineering in February 2007, and
Petitioner No. 2 completed his Masters of Engineering in February
2010. As per the Government Resolution dated 18 December 1999
and the Rules framed for the Career Advancement Scheme, a lecturer
becomes eligible for the implementation of the time scale of Lecturer
(Senior Scale) after completing six years' service as a Lecturer and
completing the required course. The Petitioners were granted the
time scale of Lecturer (Senior Scale) on 10 September 2005. On 20
August 2010, the 6th Pay Scales were implemented from 1 January
2006. After that, the Petitioners were placed in the pay band of Rs.
37400-67000 and designated as Associate Professors. On 15
December 2012, the Respondent Institute submitted an application
to the Respondent University for approval of the placement and
implementation of the time scale of Lecturer (Senior Scale) and
Lecturer (Selection Grade) for the Petitioners.
4. A Scrutiny Committee was constituted to scrutinise and verify
education, qualification, service books, self-appraisal reports, etc. On
24 May 2013, the Scrutiny Committee interviewed the Petitioners
903 WP-8348-2021.edited.doc
and verified all the documents for approval. Petitioner No. 1 was
placed in Pay Scale Rs.37400-67000 with a Grade Pay of Rs.9000/-
with designation of the Associate Professor in October 2013 and the
Petitioner No. 2 in October 2015. On 18 February 2021, the
Respondent Institute issued a letter to the Petitioners that since the
Respondent University has not communicated its approval for
placement of the Petitioners in the post of Lecturer (Senior Scale)
and Lecturer (Selection Grade), their designation as Associate
Professor was withdrawn and the amount paid to the Petitioners
under said grades is recovered. The communication informed the
Petitioners that their pay scale has been reverted and their unpaid
salary adjusted towards the excess amount paid to the Petitioners.
5. The Petitioners have filed a petition challenging the
communication by Respondent Management dated February 18,
2021. They are seeking a direction for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5
Education Institute to return the amount to them. Alternatively, they
are seeking a direction for the University to grant formal approval for
the implementation of the time scale of Lecturer (Senior Scale) and
Lecturer (Selection Grade). Both the Respondent Education Institute
and the Respondent University have filed their replies. Additionally,
Petitioner No. 1 has filed an additional affidavit and rejoinder.
6. The Petitioners contend that the action of the Respondent
903 WP-8348-2021.edited.doc
Management in unilaterally withdrawing the pay scale is entirely
arbitrary. No details have been given and they have adjusted sixteen
months unpaid salary. It is submitted that the action of the
Respondent Management is illegal and unjust and should be quashed
and set aside. The Respondent Education Institute has filed a reply
affidavit to contest the petition. The Respondent Management has
submitted that there is no approval received from the Respondent
University. The amount was paid to the Petitioners since they went
on hunger strike, and when it was realised that Respondent
Management, without any approval, had paid excess salary and
allowance, recovery has been initiated and there is no illegality in the
same.
7. According to us, the issue lies in a narrow compass, and it is
crystallised in view of the stand taken by Respondent University. The
reply affidavit is filed by Respondent University on 25 February
2022. This affidavit has made the position clear. The relevant part of
the affidavit reads thus:
"5. The process begins with Career Advancement
Scheme proposals being submitted by the concerned
College to the University in individual cases of lecturers.
The University, after receiving such proposals from
College, constitutes a Scrutiny Committee comprising of
Chairperson of the governing body of the College,
nominee of the Vice-Chancellor, nominee of reserved
category, Women's representative, a member nominated
by the State Government, nominee of the Vice-
Chancellor (Subject Expert) and other Subject Experts
along with the Principals and HOD of the concerned
903 WP-8348-2021.edited.doc
subjects from the College. The Scrutiny Committee
makes an individual report of each candidate and submits
it to the University along- with all other documents and
then the University, based on the individual report, grants
its 'letter of approval' in the name of the candidate. The
process is carried out scrupulously by University with
cooperation from the concerned College. Hereto annexed
and marked as Exhibit - 1 is a copy of the Career
Advancement Scheme proforma.
6. In the present case, the Petitioners seem to have
appeared before the scrutiny committee comprising of
members as aforestated. After report of the scrutiny
committee, the University has sent all individual
files/proposals to concerned College/Management
Respondent Nos.4 and 5. It was expected that the
College/Management would send the files/proposals back
to the University after getting signatures of the President
of the Management, Principal of the College as required.
I say that Respondent Nos.4 & 5 have failed to submit
the same to the University and therefore the University
has not issued 'Letter of Approval' in the name of the
Petitioners. In spite of absence of such approval from the
University, Respondent Nos.4 and 5 had applied the
benefits to the Petitioners on its own. The College/
Management ought to have applied the benefits only
after receiving the 'Letters of Approval' from the
university. Later on, it seems that after realizing the error
on their part, Respondent Nos.4 and 5 have taken steps
to retrieve back the benefits so conferred upon the
Petitioners and against that action, the Petitioners have
approached this Hon'ble Court. Therefore, the University
should not be held responsible for the acts and deeds of
the College and Management."
8. Factual position and the stand of the respective parties indicate
only a procedural aspect. On the substantive part, the Petitioners
903 WP-8348-2021.edited.doc
have appeared before the Scrutiny Committee, and the report was
also submitted, a right accrued to the Petitioners, which should not
be taken away for the lack of the signatures of the President/Principal
of the Education Institute for the formal approval.
9. We are informed that some of the Petitioners have now retired.
Due to the recovery which is made, their pensionary benefits are
substantially affected.
10. Therefore, we are of the opinion that once substantial
compliance was made of appearing before the Scrutiny Committee,
the Petitioners can not be prejudiced by the procedural part which
was only a formality. This can be rectified by the Respondents by
taking post facto action. The Scrutiny Committee has already been
held in favour of the Petitioners, and now only the issuance of
approval order to be passed by the University remains. As regards
individual cases, as the University itself has stated on the affidavit,
they have been examined by the Scrutiny Committee.
11. Therefore, we direct that the Respondent Education Institute
will send correspondence documents to the University by post facto
placing the signatures on the files/proposals within a period of four
weeks from today. After this procedural formality is completed, the
University, upon examination of the cases of each Petitioner, will
issue letter/s of approval, with its copy sent to Petitioners for the
record. Once the letter of approval is so issued, the lacuna pointed
out in the impugned order having been removed, the Respondent
903 WP-8348-2021.edited.doc
Education Institute will return the amount which has been recovered
from the Petitioners, within a period of three months from the date
of issuance of formal letter of grant of approval.
12. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. The writ petition is
disposed of.
( M.M. SATHAYE, J.) ( NITIN JAMDAR, J.)
