[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Vijay Ratanlal Nagori vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 19 January, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:1953-DB
*1* wp8565o16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.8565 OF 2016
Prof. Vijay S/o Ratanlal Nagori
Age 50 years, Occ. Professor and
Head, Department of Commerce,
Smt. Dankunwar Mahila Mahavidyalaya,
Jalna, R/o Sukhshantinagar, Mantha Road,
Jalna, Tal. & District Jalna.
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra.
Through its Principal Secretary,
Higher And Technical Education
Department, Manatralaya Annex,
Mumbai 32.
2. The Director of Higher Education,
Maharashtra State, Central Building, Pune.
3. The Joint Director of Higher Education,
Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.
4. Smt. Dankunwar Mahila Mahavidyalaya,
Jalna, R/o Sukhshantinagar, Mantha Road,
Jalna, Tal. & District Jalna.
Through its Principal.
...RESPONDENTS
...
Dr. R.J. Godbole, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri B.V. Virdhe, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3/State.
Shri M.S. Karad, Advocate for respondent No.4.
...
CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT
&
SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, JJ.
*2* wp8565o16
Reserved on : 06 January 2026
Pronounced on : 19 January 2026
JUDGMENT (Per Sushil M. Ghodeswar, J.) :
-
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard
finally with the consent of the parties.
3. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks directions to the
respondents to step up the petitioner equivalent to his junior
associate professor from the date of revision of pay/salary of
junior associate professor w.e.f. 01.09.2008 as per Government
Resolution dated 12.08.2009. He is also seeking direction to pay
arrears of salary and other consequential benefits.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that he is working as
Professor with respondent No.4 college. Another Associate
Professor, namely, Dr.A.S. Nathrekar, who is junior to the
petitioner and who has obtained Ph.D. degree subsequent to the
petitioner, is getting higher salary w.e.f. 01.09.2008. In order to
show disparity in pay scale of the petitioner and the said
associate professor Dr.Nathrekar, the petitioner has relied upon
*3* wp8565o16
the following chart:-
Date Pay Scale Prof. V.R. Prof. A.S. Remark
Nagori Nathrekar Pay Scale
(Petitioner) Lecturer in Commission
Selection
Grade
01.07.2002 12000-18300 13680 13680 5th Pay
(Reader) (Lecturer in Commission
Selection
Grade Equal Pay
without
Ph.D.)
01.07.2003 12000-18300 14100 14100 Equal Pay
01.07.2004 12000-18300 14520 14520 Equal Pay
01.07.2005 12000-18300 14940 14940 Equal Pay
01.01.2006 37400-67000 38530+AGP 38530+AGP 6th Pay
9000 = 9000 = Commission
47530 47530
Equal Pay
01.07.2006 37400-67000 48960 48960 Equal Pay
(including (including
AGP 9000 & AGP 9000 &
increment) increment)
01.07.2007 37400-67000 50430 50430 Equal Pay
(including (including
AGP 9000 & AGP 9000 &
increment) increment)
01.07.2008 37400-67000 51950 56360 Junior
(including (including Getting more
AGP 9000 & AGP 900 & salary
increment) increment)
*4* wp8565o16
Step up date Awarded
1.09.2008, Reader on
56360/- 04.04.2007
Awarded
Reader on Designated
01.07.2002 Associate
Designated Professor on
as Senior 04.04.2010
Associate
Professor on
01.01.2006
5. The aforesaid chart discloses that as on 01.07.2002,
the petitioner was working as Reader, whereas the said
Dr.Nathrekar was working as Lecturer in selection grade without
Ph.D. and at the relevant time, both were getting equal salary as
per 5th Pay Commission. This position was continued upto
01.01.2006 when in pursuance of the 6th Pay Commission, both
were placed in pay scale of Rs. 38530 plus Annual Grade Pay Rs.
9000 equal to 47530. Even thereafter, both were getting same salary.
However, in the meantime, Dr.Nathrekar was awarded with Ph.D. on
04.04.2007. It is also clear that both were associate professors on
01.01.2006. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner has
acquired Ph.D. degree on 13.12.2000. The petitioner was awarded as
Reader on 01.07.2002 and designated as Senior Associate Professor
on 01.01.2006 whereas, Dr.Nathrekar was awarded as Reader on
04.04.2007 and designated as Associate Professor on 04.04.2010. The
*5* wp8565o16
petitioner was given Professor Selection Grade on 15.02.2013 in scale
of Rs.37400-67000 GP 10000/- and Dr.Nathrekar was granted
Professor Selection Grade w.e.f. 18.11.2019. However, as per the 7 th
Pay Revised Pay w.e.f. 01.01.2016, the petitioner is placed in pay
scale of Rs.162300/- whereas, Dr.Nathrekar is placed in pay scale of
Rs.1,81,800/-.
6. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid disparity is due
to wrong assessment of his pay scale and he ought to have been given
same benefit, which was extended to Dr.Nathrekar, who has acquired
Ph.D. qualification subsequent to him. The petitioner had approached
the authorities by preferring representations dated 20.04.2016,
27.04.2016 and 06.05.2016 requesting to remove anomalies in
salaries. However, no decision is taken on the said representations,
therefore, the petitioner has filed this petition. The petitioner has
placed reliance upon Note-5 and Note-6 in Appendix-I of the
Government Resolution dated 12.08.2009 issued by the Government
of Maharashtra. The said Notes 5 and 6 read as under:-
"Note 5 - Where in the fixation of pay under sub rule
2(A), the pay of a teacher, who, in the existing scale
was drawing immediately before the 1st January,
2006 more pay than the other teacher junior to him in
the same cadre, gets fixed in the revised pay band at
a stage lower than that of such junior, his pay shall be
stepped up to the same stage in the revised pay band
as that of the junior.
*6* wp8565o16
Note 6 - In case where a senior teacher promoted to a
higher post before the1st day of January,2006 draws
less pay in the revised pay structure than his junior
who is promoted to the higher post on or after the1st
day of January,2006, the pay in the pay band of such
senior teacher should be stepped up to an amount
equal to the pay in pay band as fixed for his junior in
that higher post. The stepping up should be done with
effect from the date of promotion of the junior teacher
subject to the fulfillment of the following conditions."
7. The learned advocate for the petitioner Dr.Godbole has
submitted that this issue has already been settled by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court as well as this Court in various judgments wherein,
Notes 5 and 6 of the Government Resolution dated 12.08.2009 have
been properly interpreted. One such judgment of this Court is in case
of Sudamrao Keshavrao Aher and others vs. The State of Maharashtra
and others, 2014 (1) All M.R. 697. The learned advocate further
submitted that the issue involved in this petition is no longer res
integra and he has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Arvind Kumar Shrivastava, 2015
(1) SCC 347 and Tukaram Kanha Joshi vs. Maharashtra Industrial
Development Corporation, 2013 (1) SCC 353.
8. On the other hand, the learned AGP appearing on behalf
of respondent Nos.1 to 3/ State authorities, by relying upon the
affidavit in reply dated 20.01.2022, submitted that the petitioner has
*7* wp8565o16
suppressed that Dr.Nathrekar was appointed on 01.09.1983 and the
petitioner was appointed on 01.07.1991 and, therefore, Dr.Nathrekar
is not junior to the petitioner. The learned AGP has relied upon the
chart in paragraph 5 of the affidavit in reply and submitted that as per
4th revised pay scale i.e. after completion of eight years, Dr.Nathrekar
was granted Senior Scale of Rs.3000-5000 w.e.f. 01.09.1991 whereas,
the petitioner got Senior Scale i.e. Rs.3000-5000 (unrevised) as per
the 5th revised pay scale i.e. Rs.10000-15200 w.e.f. 27.01.1998.
Dr.Nathrekar was granted Selection Grade i.e. Rs.12000-18300/-
w.e.f. 27.07.1998 whereas, the petitioner was granted selection grade
w.e.f. 13.12.2000 under the 5th revised pay scale with two increments
on account of Ph.D.. Dr.Nathrekar acquired Ph.D. degree on
04.04.2007 and, therefore, by adding three increments as per the 6 th
pay scale w.e.f. 01.09.2008 her basic salary/scale came to Rs.47,630/-,
whereas, the petitioner's basic salary/scale came to Rs.42950/-.
Though the petitioner acquired Ph.D. degree on 13.12.2000, however,
basic pay admissible to him w.e.f. 01.09.2008 was Rs.42950/-.
Therefore, according to the learned AGP, the petitioner is misleading
this Court that he was promoted as Reader on 13.12.2000 and also
suppressing that he got increment in the year 2000 itself.
9. Another contention which the learned AGP has raised is
that the post of Reader is designated post and the petitioner as well as
*8* wp8565o16
Dr.Nathrekar have been designated as Readers under the Career
Advancement Scheme (CAS). Therefore, other service benefits are
not made applicable to the post of Reader since it is designated post.
The learned AGP, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the instant
petition.
10. The learned advocate for respondent No.4 college has
submitted that he cannot go against the service record available. He,
therefore, prayed for passing appropriate order.
11. The short question which arises for consideration is
whether, the petitioner is entitled to stepping up of pay under
Notes 5 and 6 of the Government Resolution dated 12.08.2009,
merely because his junior acquired Ph.D. qualification after
implementation of the 6th Pay Commission.
12. After hearing the learned advocates for the respective
sides at length, it is clear that the petitioner through this petition is
praying for equivalent step up of salary at par with junior associate
professor w.e.f. 01.09.2008 as per the Government Resolution dated
12.08.2009. According to the petitioner, Dr.Nathrekar is holding the
same post and, therefore, as per Notes 5 and 6 of appendix to the
Government Resolution dated 12.08.2009, the petitioner is entitled for
equal salary. A bare perusal of Notes 5 and 6, reproduced above,
*9* wp8565o16
would make it clear that i f, while fixing pay under sub-rule 2(A), a
senior teacher was drawing more pay than his junior in the old
pay scale before 01.01.2006, but after revision his pay is fixed at
a lower level than that of the junior, then the senior teacher's pay
must be increased (stepped up) to the same level as that of the
junior in the revised pay band. Further, Note 6 makes it clear that
if a senior teacher was promoted to a higher post before
01.01.2006 and after pay revision, he gets less pay than his
junior, who was promoted to the same higher post on or after
01.01.2006, then the senior teacher's pay in the revised pay band
must be increased to match the pay fixed for the junior in that
higher post. This increase shall take effect from the date on
which the junior teacher was promoted, provided the required
conditions are satisfied.
13. In this case, it is nowhere in dispute that
Dr.Nathrekar is getting more salary than the present petitioner.
The petitioner has not arrayed Dr.Nathrekar as necessary party to
this petition as there is no question as regards incorrect
assessment of her salary. Even the State Authorities are also not
disputing that Dr.Nathrekar is being paid excessively or
*10* wp8565o16
incorrectly. Now, the question of seniority, if at all is required to
be considered, in any event both Notes 5 and 6 take care of the
situation that even if a junior or senior is getting more salary than
a teacher, then such teacher should be paid equal salary if both
teachers are working in the same cadre. Note-5 takes care of
cases of pay anomaly arising upon revision, whereas Note-6
applies to anomalies arising due to promotion before and after
01.01.2006. The fact remains that the Government Resolution
dated 12.08.2009 considers the policy of 'equal pay for equal
work'.
14. Even otherwise on merits, the petitioner is right in
submitting that though he had been designated as Reader in 2002,
still Dr.Nathrekar, who was designated as reader in 2007 is
getting more salary than the petitioner. The respondents
authorities claim that Dr.Nathrekar is getting more salary as on
01.09.2008 because of her Ph.D. acquirement, however, the fact
remains that the petitioner has also acquired Ph.D. degree on
13.12.2000 i.e. much before Dr.Nathrekar, however, he is getting
less salary than that of Dr.Nathrekar. Though the petitioner has
submitted representations to the authorities for removing
*11* wp8565o16
disparity in salary, however, the said representations have not
been decided by the respondents. The allegation of suppression
raised by the State does not hold merit, as the material facts
regarding appointment, qualifications, and pay fixation are borne
out from the official records produced before this Court.
15. It is settled position of law that where all things are
equal i.e. where all relevant considerations are same, then the
persons holding identical posts may not be treated differently in
the matter of pay. It is also well settled that there can be different
grades in service with varying qualifications for entry into a
particular grade and the higher grade often being a promotional
avenue for officers of the lower grade. The higher qualifications
for the higher grade, which may be either academic qualifications
or experience based on length of service, reasonably sustain the
classification of the officers into two grades with different scales
of pay. The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' would be an
abstract doctrine not attracting Article 14 of the Constitution of
India if sought to be applied to them. Admittedly, the principle of
'equal pay for equal work' is not expressly declared by the
Constitution to be a fundamental right, but it is certainly a
*12* wp8565o16
constitutional goal. Article 39(d) of the Constitution proclaims
'equal pay for equal work' for both men and women as a
directive principle of the State Policy. Directive principles will
have to be read into the fundamental rights as a matter of
interpretation. Article 14 envisages that the State should not deny
any person equality before the law or the equal protection of law
and Article 16 declares that there shall be equality of opportunity
for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment
to any office under the State. These equality clauses of the
Constitution must mean something to everyone.
16. In the present case, if the arguments raised by the
learned AGP are accepted, same would certainly amount to
discriminate two teachers only on the basis that one teacher
having acquired Ph.D. degree subsequently after implementation
of the 6th pay commission. It is different when one teacher is
having higher qualification. However, it would be discriminatory
when both are having similar qualifications and a person not only
senior in service, but also equally qualified is so discriminated so
as to be put him in disadvantageous position as it was a fault to
have acquired Ph.D. qualification earlier to other teacher and
*13* wp8565o16
more importantly, prior to implementation of the new pay
commission. Acquiring Ph.D. qualification at different times has
caused this disparity in salary.
17. In Sudamrao Keshavrao Aher (supra), this Court,
while allowing the petition was pleased to direct the respondents
to step up the pay of the petitioners therein so as to be at par with
juniors where all the things given are same and shall not
discriminate only because the junior teacher has acquired Ph.D.
qualification after implementation of the 06th pay commission.
Similar issue came up before this Court in Writ Petition
No.8565/2016 (Prof. Vijay Ratanlal Nagori vs. The State of
Maharashtra) decided on 18.11.2016 wherein, this Court has
allowed the said writ petition and directed the respondent
authorities to refix pay of the petitioner therein. Relying upon the
judgment in Sudamrao Keshavrao Aher (supra), this Court
allowed Writ Petition No.11129/2015 (Dr.Sudhakar Murlidhar
Lawande and others vs. The State of Maharashtra and others )
vide judgment dated 22.01.2016 and accordingly stepped up the
wages of the petitioners therein to equate them with the wages
being paid to their juniors after 01.01.2006.
*14* wp8565o16
18. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is allowed
with the following directions:-
(a) The respondents shall step up the pay of the
petitioner w.e.f. 01.09.2008 so as to bring it at par with that of
Dr.Nathrekar where all relevant service conditions are identical.
They shall not discriminate the petitioner only because
Dr.Nathrekar has acquired Ph.D. degree in the course of 06 th pay
commission.
(b) The respondents shall re-fix the salary of the
petitioner and calculate and pay the arrears accordingly to the
petitioner within a period of three months from today.
(c) If the pay is not refixed and the arrears are not paid
within the stipulated period, the same shall carry interest at the
rate of 8% per annum and such interest would then be recovered
from the respondents.
(d) If the petitioner has already retired, his pension be
re-fixed and continued to be paid, accordingly.
19. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
kps (SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.) (KISHORE C. SANT, J.)
