Bombay High Court
The Government Of Maharashtra Thr Prin. ... vs Meena Bhimanand Sonavane on 16 April, 2025
Author: A. S. Chandurkar
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
2025:BHC-AS:17232-DB
RAMESHWAR
LAXMAN
DILWALE
901-WP-1293-24 JUDGMENT.doc Rameshwar Dilwale
Digitally signed
by RAMESHWAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
LAXMAN CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
DILWALE
Date: 2025.04.16 WRIT PETITION NO.1293 OF 2024
18:15:55 +0530
Meena Bhimanand Sonavane }
Aged 62 years, Professor at Institute }
of Nursing Education, J. J. Hospital Campus, }
Byculla, Mumbai-400 008 and }
Residing at A-401, Garden CHS Ltd., }
Greet Complex, Ghatkopar-Mankhurd Link Road, }
Govandi, Mumbai 400043 }
Email:[email protected] }
Mobile 9869624870 } .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The Government of Maharashtra }
Through Secretary, Medical Education & }
Drug Department, G. T. Hospital Campus, }
9th Floor, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 001 }
2. The Director of Medical Education }
and Research }
St. George Hospital Campus, Dental College }
Building, 4th Floor, Mumbai 400 001 }
3. The Government of Maharashtra }
Through Chief Secretary, }
General Administrator Department, }
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032 }
4. The Principal of Institute of Nursing }
Education, J. J. Hospital Campus, }
Byculla, Mumbai 400 008 } .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.11703 OF 2024
1. The Government of Maharashtra }
Through Principal Secretary, }
Medical Education & Drug Department, }
G. T. Hospital Campus, }
9th Floor, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032 }
1/14
::: Uploaded on - 16/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2025 22:33:43 :::
901-WP-1293-24 JUDGMENT.doc Rameshwar Dilwale
2. The Director of Medical Education }
and Research }
St. George Hospital Campus, Dental College }
Building, 4th Floor, Mumbai 400 001 }
3. The Government of Maharashtra }
Through Chief Secretary, }
General Administrator Department, }
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032 }
4. The Principal of Institute of Nursing }
Education, J. J. Hospital Campus, }
Byculla, Mumbai 400 008 } .. Petitioners
Versus
Meena Bhimanand Sonavane }
Aged 62 years, Occupation: Retired, }
Address: A-401, Garden CHS Ltd., }
Greet Complex, Ghatkopar-Mankhurd }
Link Road,Govandi, Mumbai 400043 }
Email:[email protected] }.. Respondent
(Org. Petitioner)
...
Mr. Sanjay Kulkarni, Advocate for the petitioner in WP No.1293 of
2024 and for the respondent in WP No.11703 of 2024.
Mr. B. V. Samant, Additional Government Pleader with Mrs. Tanu
N. Bhatia, Assistant Government Pleader for the petitioners in WP
No.11703 of 2024 and for the respondents in WP No.1293 of 2024.
...
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR &
M. M. SATHAYE, JJ
Date on which the arguments were heard : 14 th JANUARY 2025 and
4th APRIL 2025
Date on which the judgment is pronounced : 16 th APRIL 2025.
2/14
::: Uploaded on - 16/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2025 22:33:43 :::
901-WP-1293-24 JUDGMENT.doc Rameshwar Dilwale
JUDGMENT:
(PER : A. S. CHANDURKAR,J)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard learned
counsel for the parties.
2. Since a challenge has been raised in these writ petitions to
the judgment dated 06/12/2023 passed by the learned Members,
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai ( for short, 'the
Tribunal') in Original Application No.682 of 2024, they are being
decided together by this common judgment.
3. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.1293 of 2024 approached
the Tribunal with a prayer that she was entitled to enhancement
in the age of her superannuation from 58 to 65 in accordance with
the directions issued by the University Grants Commission (for
short, 'the UGC'). She was holding that post of Professor at the
Government Nursing College and was aggrieved by the decision to
superannuate her at the age of 58 years. The petitioner also
prayed for a declaration that she was entitled to the UGC pay-
scale from 01/01/2006 and thus sought revision of her pay-scale
with all necessary allowances. The Tribunal by the impugned
judgment did not grant any relief with regard to enhancement in
901-WP-1293-24 JUDGMENT.doc Rameshwar Dilwale
the age of superannuation from 58 to 65. Consequently, the
petitioner stood retired on 31/08/2019. The Tribunal however
held the petitioner entitled to receive pay as per guidelines of the
UGC from the date she was appointed on the post of Professor.
The petitioner being aggrieved by the rejection of the prayer
for extending the age of superannuation from 58 to 65 has
challenged that part of the decision of the Tribunal in Writ Petition
No.1293 of 2024. The State of Maharashtra through its Medical
Education and Drugs Department as well as the Institute of
Nursing Education through its Principal are aggrieved by the
direction issued by the Tribunal holding the petitioner entitled to
pay and allowances as per the UGC guidelines and hence they
have challenged that direction by preferring Writ Petition
No.11703 of 2024.
4. Facts relevant for considering the challenges as raised are
that the petitioner entered service on the post of Staff Nurse on
21/03/1985. During the course of service, she improved her
educational qualifications and ultimately came to be appointed on
the post of Professor at the Institute of Nursing Education from
21/01/2013. It is her case that she is a "Teacher" as defined
under Section 2(35) of the Maharashtra University of Health
901-WP-1293-24 JUDGMENT.doc Rameshwar Dilwale
Sciences Act, 1998 (for short, 'the Act of 1998') and is thus
entitled to all such benefits on that basis. The Department of
Medical Education and Research by its decision dated
13/04/2010 enhanced the age of retirement of "Teachers" to 62
years. Subsequently by Government Resolution dated
05/03/2015 the age of retirement was further enhanced to 64
years. According to the petitioner by virtue of Government
Resolution dated 27/03/1989, a policy decision was taken thereby
making the UGC pay-scale applicable to teachers which included
a "Teacher" under the Medical Education and Research
Department. On that basis, the petitioner claims entitlement to
the benefit of Government Resolution dated 05/03/2015. Since
the age of retirement of teachers under the Higher Education
Department insofar as the Principal was concerned was 65 years
and the post of Professor was 64 years, the petitioner was entitled
to such benefits. It was thus clear that the teachers at various
faculties such as Biology, Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics, etc
were getting salary as per UGC scale but Nursing teachers had
been denied the same. Such discrimination was hit by Article 14
of the Constitution of India. On that basis, such benefit of pay-
scale as well as enhanced age of superannuation was sought by
the petitioner.
901-WP-1293-24 JUDGMENT.doc Rameshwar Dilwale
5. According to the Department of Medical Education and
Research, the pay-scales as per the guidelines of the UGC had
been made applicable to teachers at the Medical, Dental and
Ayurved colleges. Such pay-scale was not made applicable to
teachers in Nursing colleges. Government Resolutions dated
10/11/2009 and 13/09/2019 had been issued in that regard. It is
the further stand of the State Authorities that by virtue of
communication dated 02/11/2017 issued by the Ministry of
Human Resource Development, the issue with regard to revision of
pay-scale of teachers was left to the discretion of the State
Government. Subject to the same being accepted, the Scheme of
revision of pay-scale would be undertaken. Since the State
Government had not adopted and implemented the Scheme with
regard to revision of pay-scales of teachers in Nursing colleges, the
petitioner was not entitled to such benefit. Since this was in the
nature of a policy decision, it could not be said that the petitioner
had been discriminated against by not granting her salary as per
the UGC guidelines. Various considerations including financial
aspects were required to be borne in mind before applying the
recommendations made by the UGC. After undertaking such
exercise, the Government Resolution dated 13/09/2019 had been
901-WP-1293-24 JUDGMENT.doc Rameshwar Dilwale
issued. The Tribunal therefore could not have issued such
direction to the State Authorities to implement UGC pay-scales to
the petitioner.
6. In the aforesaid backdrop, we have heard Mr. Sanjay
Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. B.
V. Samant, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for
the State of Maharashtra and others. The parties have placed on
record their written submissions and we have perused the same.
On 04/04/2025, a copy of the Government Resolution dated
13/09/2019 was placed on record. We have accordingly given
thoughtful consideration to the respective submissions and the
documentary material on record.
7. The petitioner in the Original Application filed by her had
sought two fold reliefs namely, a declaration that she was entitled
to continue in service till she attained the age of 65 years and
secondly, the benefit of higher pay-scales as per the guidelines of
the UGC. Insofar as the declaration sought by her as regards the
age of superannuation, the said relief was denied by the Tribunal.
In this regard, it is urged on behalf of the petitioner that as she is
covered under the definition of the expression "Teacher" under the
901-WP-1293-24 JUDGMENT.doc Rameshwar Dilwale
Act of 1998 and as the age of superannuation of teachers
imparting education in "health sciences" had been increased to
65 years, the petitioner was entitled to such benefit. Moreover,
Nursing faculty was included in the expression" health sciences"
as defined by Section 2(17) of the Act of 1998. In this regard it is
to be noted that by Government Resolution dated 30/04/2010,
the Medical Education and Drugs Department enhanced the age
of superannuation of Lecturers and Professors teaching in various
Government Medical, Dental and Ayurved colleges from 58 years
to 62 years. The reason given therein was that in the various
Government Medical, Dental and Ayurved colleges the process of
recruitment was being conducted by the Maharashtra Public
Service Commission and the same was likely to take a longer time.
In the meanwhile, the incumbents continued to retire on attaining
the age of 58 years which would have resulted in numerous
vacancies thus affecting the education field. For that reason, the
Medical Education and Drugs Department took a policy decision
to increase the age of superannuation of Lecturers and Professors
from 58 years to 62 years. Subsequently by another Government
Resolution dated 05/06/2015, the age of superannuation of
Lecturers and Professors of Government Medical, Dental and
Ayurved colleges was again increased from 62 years to 64 years.
901-WP-1293-24 JUDGMENT.doc Rameshwar Dilwale
Similar reason as assigned in the Government Resolution dated
30/04/2010 was reiterated and the events that transpired
thereafter were taken into consideration.
8. It is thus clear on a reading of the aforesaid Government
Resolutions that with a view to safeguard the interest of students
undertaking education in Government Medical, Dental and
Ayurved colleges such policy decision was taken. No need was felt
for enhancing the age of superannuation in Nursing colleges as
such factual situation did not exist in those colleges. In our view,
there is a rationale behind enhancing the age of superannuation
of Lecturers and Professors from 58 years to 62 years and
thereafter from 62 years to 64 years at the Government Medical,
Dental and Ayurved colleges. Since such factual aspects were not
present insofar as Government Nursing colleges are concerned, it
cannot be said that the petitioner who is serving as Professor at
the Institute of Nursing Education had been discriminated. Merely
on the ground that the petitioner is a "Teacher" as defined by
Section 2(35) of the Act of 1998 or that the field of Nursing is also
included in the definition of "health sciences" under Section 2(17)
of the Act of 1998, the same cannot be the basis to hold that the
petitioner is entitled to a declaration that her age of
901-WP-1293-24 JUDGMENT.doc Rameshwar Dilwale
superannuation ought to be 65 years. The Tribunal therefore was
justified in refusing to grant such relief to the petitioner. That
finding recorded by the Tribunal is thus upheld.
9. Coming to the aspect of applicability of UGC pay-scales to
teachers in Government Nursing colleges, according to the
petitioner since such UGC pay-scales have been applied to
teachers under the Medical Education and Drugs Department, the
petitioner who is also a teacher under the Act of 1998 was also
entitled to such benefit. In this regard, it is to be noted that
initially on 10/11/2009, the Medical Education and Drugs
Department revised the pay-scales of teachers in Government
Medical, Dental and Ayurved colleges in accordance with the UGC
guidelines. The revision was however not made applicable to
teachers in Nursing colleges. On 02/11/2017, the Ministry of
Human Resource Development, Department of Higher Education
conveyed the Scheme of revision of pay of teachers in Universities
and Colleges based on the recommendation of the 7 th Central Pay
Commission. As per Clause 16 of the said Scheme, insofar as
colleges and higher educational Institutes coming under the
purview of State Governments were concerned, it was left to the
discretion of the respective State Governments to adopt and
901-WP-1293-24 JUDGMENT.doc Rameshwar Dilwale
implement the said Scheme. On that basis, the Medical Education
and Drugs Department of the State Government issued
Government Resolution dated 13/09/2019 and revised the pay-
scales of teachers only in Government Medical, Dental and
Ayurved colleges. This Government Resolution has not been made
applicable to teachers in Nursing colleges. The petitioner being a
teacher in a Government Nursing college was therefore not entitled
to such revised pay-scales.
10. In our view, applicability of higher pay-scales to a particular
class of teachers is a policy decision to be taken by the State
Government. Various aspects including financial considerations
are required to be kept in mind before revising pay-scales.
Reference in this regard can be usefully made to the decision of
the Supreme Court in Chandrashekar A K Vs. State of Kerala
(2009) 1 SCC 73 wherein it has been held that revision of pay
scale is a matter of policy for the State and that no legal right
exists in a person to seek implementation of revised pay scale. It is
for this reason that the Ministry of Human Resource Development
in its Scheme for revision of pay of teachers dated 02/11/2017
has left the matter to the discretion of the respective State
Governments to consider adopting and implementing the said
901-WP-1293-24 JUDGMENT.doc Rameshwar Dilwale
Scheme to its various departments. The State Government on due
consideration thereafter has revised the pay-scales of teachers in
Government Medical, Dental and Ayurved colleges vide
Government Resolution dated 13/09/2019.
11. In the Original Application filed by the petitioner, the
Government Resolution dated 13/09/2019 was not put to
challenge. Instead, the petitioner who was serving in the Nursing
faculty sought parity in the matter of applicability of pay-scales
similar to that of teachers in Government Medical, Dental and
Ayurved colleges. In absence of any challenge to the Government
Resolution dated 13/09/2019 before the Tribunal as well as in
Writ Petition No.1293 of 2024 filed by her, it is not necessary to go
into the aspect as regards alleged discrimination between teachers
in Government Medical, Dental and Ayurved colleges on one hand
and teachers in Government Nursing colleges on the other as
regards pay parity. The Tribunal without considering the effect of
Government Resolution dated 13/09/2019 has proceeded to grant
the petitioner relief in the form of applicability of pay-scales as per
UGC guidelines. Another relevant aspect that cannot be ignored is
the fact that the petitioner retired on attaining the age of
superannuation on 31/08/2019 while the revision of pay-scales of
901-WP-1293-24 JUDGMENT.doc Rameshwar Dilwale
teachers in Government Medical, Dental and Ayurved colleges was
effected subsequently by Government Resolution dated
13/09/2019. Thus after the superannuation of the petitioner, the
said Government Resolution has come into effect. Without
considering these aspects, the Tribunal proceeded to grant the
petitioner relief that goes beyond the applicability of the
Government Resolution. We find the same unsustainable in law.
Hence that part of the order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be
set aside.
12. For aforesaid reasons, the following order is passed:-
i) The judgment of the Tribunal dated 06/12/2023 in
Original Application No.682 of 2022 to the extent it grants
the relief of applicability of UGC pay-scales to the petitioner
from the date she held the post of Professor is quashed and
set aside.
ii) The refusal by the Tribunal to grant the relief of
extending the age of superannuation from 58 years to 65
years is upheld.
iii) Consequently, Original Application No.682 of 2022
stands dismissed.
iv) The petitioner however is at liberty to raise a challenge
901-WP-1293-24 JUDGMENT.doc Rameshwar Dilwale
to Government Resolution dated 13/09/2019 issued by the
Medical Education and Drugs Department revising in the
pay-scales of teachers in Government Medical, Dental and
Ayurved colleges and not to teachers in Nursing colleges, if
so advised. It is clarified that this Court has not examined
the validity of the aforesaid Government Resolution and
said aspect is kept open.
v) Consequently, Writ Petition No.1293 of 2024 is
dismissed. Writ Petition No.11703 of 2024 is allowed. Rule
in both the writ petitions is disposed of in aforesaid terms
leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
[ M. M. SATHAYE , J. ] [ A.S. CHANDURKAR, J. ]
