Bombay High Court
Ramesh Jagannath Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 30 June, 2025
Author: Manish Pitale
Bench: Manish Pitale
2025:BHC-AUG:16672-DB
50wp7537-25
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 7537 OF 2025
Ramesh S/o Jangannath Patil,
Age: 66 years, Occu: Pensioner,
R/o: Jalke, Ta and Dist. Jalgaon ..Petitioner
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Higher Technical Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai -32.
2. The Director of Higher Education,
Maharashtra State, Pune
3. The Joint Director of Higher Education,
Jalgaon Division, Jalgaon ... Respondents
...
Mr. S. R. Barling, Advocate for the Petitioner,
Mr. S. P. Sonpawale, AGP for the Respondents State
.....
CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
DATE : 30th June, 2025
P. C. :
. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the
parties the petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.
2. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking specific
directions against the respondents for release of pay scale of Rs.4000-
6000/- as per Government Resolution dated 27.02.2006.
50wp7537-25
3. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the Principal of
the College, in which the the petitioner was appointed as Laboratory
Assistant, issued an order as far back as on 10.05.2016 recommending
grant of such pay scale, but no action in that regard is taken by the
respondents.
4. It is to be noted that there was a controversy raised in similar
cases as regards applicability of the said Government Resolution to
Laboratory Assistants working in colleges affiliated to the University.
5. By a judgment and order dated 04.07.2014 (Writ Petition No.
243/2007), Division Bench of this Court granted reliefs to identically
situated employees. The review application filed on behalf of the
respondent State was dismissed as far back as on 19.07.2017. Special
Leave Petition filed against the same was also dismissed by the Supreme
Court. Subsequently, similar orders were passed by the various Division
Benches of this Court, at this Bench and also the Principal Seat, which
were confirmed by the Supreme Court.
6. Not only this, recently in Writ Petition No. 1561 of 2024,
wherein 19 identically situated petitioners approached the Principal
Seat of this Court, by judgment and order dated 05.02.2025, relief was
granted and further direction was issued that interest would be paid at
50wp7537-25
the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition on the
amount of arrears.
7. A stern warning was issued in para no. 11 of the said
judgment and order wherein, it was observed that if in future similar
matters come up before the Court praying for similar relief, the interest
component would be increased and it would be made applicable from
the date of the said Government Resolution i.e. 27.02.2006.
8. In view of the above, we are more than convinced that the
case of the petitioner is completely covered by the aforementioned
judgment and orders passed by various benches of this Court and which
stood confirmed upto the Supreme Court. In such a situation, the
observations made in the aforesaid recent judgment and order passed
at the Principal Seat of this Court on 05.02.2025 in Writ Petition No.
1561 of 2024 are relevant and they read as follows:
"6. The Petitioners are entitled for the benefits of the
Government Resolution dated 27th February, 2006 in view
of the Judgment dated 4th July, 2014 delivered in Writ
Petition No.243 of 2007, at Aurangabad Bench and the
order dated 19th April, 2017 vide which, the Review
Petition No.119 of 2016 was rejected.
7. The learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits that
for the last 11 years, this Court has been repeatedly
passing such orders. Despite series of such orders and the
Hon'ble Supreme Court having repeatedly dismissed the
50wp7537-25
SLPs, the Government is still not following the
Government Resolution and compelling the litigants to
approach this Court and indulge in litigation, perforce. He
submits that even earlier, the Court had granted interest.
The learned AGP submits that interest may not be granted.
8. We are of the view that the concerned Department of
the State Government should have actually issued a
circular bringing to the notice of all concerned, the fact of
this Court having delivered orders in the last 11 years and
the SLPs filed by the State of Maharashtra having been
repeatedly rejected. The circular should have had the
semblance of a direction for specific implementation of the
Government Resolution dated 27th February, 2006.
9. Even after 11 years of the orders passed by this Court,
the Petitioners are compelled to approach this Court by
filing Petitions, which is purely a compulsion. Such
unnecessary litigation could have been avoided. It is in
these circumstances that we are granting interest on the
arrears to be paid to the Petitioners at the rate of 6% p.a.
from the date of the filing of the Petitions.
10. This Writ Petition is allowed, in terms of prayer clauses
(A) and (B). The arrears shall be calculated along with the
interest component and the same shall be paid to these
Petitioners within 60 days from today.
11. We also observe that if in future similar matters come
up before this Court praying for a similar relief, the
interest component would be increased and it would be
made applicable from the date of the Government
Resolution dated, 27th February, 2006."
9. In this situation, we are of the opinion that the petitioner has
made out a case for allowing the writ petition on similar lines.
50wp7537-25
Accordingly, writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (B),
which reads as follows:
(B) By a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or
order or directions in the like nature, the respondents may kindly
be directed to pay the arrears of difference and wages as per the
pay scale of Rs.4000-6000/- and grade pay of Rs.4200/- along
with interest @ Rs.6% p.a. to the petitioner within a period of six
weeks.
10. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
11. It is made clear that the component of interest would be paid
from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 09.06.2025. It is further made
clear that if the petitioner has already received any amount towards
such pay scale, the same would be taken into account.
12. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
( Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ) ( MANISH PITALE, J. )
JPChavan
