Bombay High Court
Shri. Sharanappa Chandramappa Hegade vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 15 December, 2022
Author: Sharmila U. Deshmukh
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre, Sharmila U. Deshmukh
(10)-WP-4066-21.doc.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
signed by
BALAJI
BALAJI GOVINDRAO
GOVINDRAO PANCHAL
PANCHAL Date:
2022.12.16
16:32:48
WRIT PETITION NO.4066 OF 2021
+0530
Shri. Sharanappa Chandramappa Hegade ..Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents
Mr. Chetan G. Patil a/w Mandar G. Bagkar, for the Petitioner.
Mr. S. B. Kalel, AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2.
Mr. Sanjay D. Thokade, for the Respondent No.3.
Ms. Kumud Bhatia, for Respondent Nos.4 & 5.
CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE &
SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, JJ.
DATE : 15th DECEMBER, 2022 P.C.
1. The petitioner was holding M.A. B.Lib. qualification and was appointed as full time librarian on 29th August, 1992.
2. The petitioner since was appointed prior to the Government Resolution dated 23rd October, 1992 whereby the State Government adopted the UGC directives dated 19/09/1991 of compulsory NET-SET qualification, he appears to be exempted from clearing NET-SET examination.
3. In view of the policy of the State Government as reflected in the Government Resolution dated 27 th June, 2013, the petitioner was held to be not entitled for higher pay-scale. The contention of the petitioner is, there is no embargo on the right of the petitioner to claim BGP. 1 of 2 (10)-WP-4066-21.doc.
such relief. In absence of express embargo, he would rely on the communication dated August 10, 1994, wherein the policy of the State Government, so also the University is to place the employees like the petitioner who have improved their qualification during service time in higher pay-scale. He has drawn support from the Government Resolution dated 20th February, 1990 and the subsequent communications.
4. Though the counsel for the respondent/University and the AGP have claimed that since the petitioner was not holding M. Lib. qualification on the date of entry in service, he was not entitled to be placed on higher pay-scale as has been claimed by him.
5. The second petition i.e. WP/6976/2022 pertains to superannuation of the petitioner on 1 st June, 2022 after having completed 58 years of age. The petitioner claims that since his post of librarian is treated as teaching post he is entitled to retire at the age 60 years, in view of UGC guidelines.
6. As this Court has already directed UGC to file reply in WP/6976/2022, it will be appropriate, in our opinion, to defer hearing of the present petition with WP/6976/2022, keeping in mind that the petitioner has already stood superannuated.
7. Stand over to 8th February, 2023.
[SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.] [NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.] BGP. 2 of 2