Bombay High Court
Dr. Sanjay Anandrao Pawade And Others vs State Of Maharashtra Through Its Chief ... on 14 March, 2016
Author: B.P. Dharmadhikari
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
wp2448.15 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2448 OF 2015
1. Dr. Sanjay Anandrao Pawade,
Aged about 36 years, occupation
- Assistant Professor.
2. Dr. Shrish Dayakarrao Gaddamwar,
aged about 34 years, occupation -
Assistant Professor.
3. Dr. Kirti Baliramji Rathod,
aged about 39 years,
occupation - Assistant Professor.
4. Dr. Ashok Baliramji Punse,
aged about 58 years,
occupation - Assistant Professor.
5. Dr. Milind Daulatrao Nimbalkar,
aged about 47 years,
occupation - Assistant Professor.
6. Dr. Pradhnya Krishna Ghormade,
aged about 42 years, occupation
Assistant Professor.
7. Dr. Pushpa Sadashivrao Narlawar,
aged about 47 years, occupation
Assistant Professor.
8. Dr. Sahebrao Krushnarao Kadam,
aged about 43 years, occupation
Assistant Professor.
9. Dr. Priti Ghanshyam Makade,
aged about 36 years, occupation
Assistant Professor.
10.Dr. Mamta S. Jaiswal,
aged about 44 years,
::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:57:30 :::
wp2448.15 2
occupation - Assistant Professor.
All r/o D.M.M. Ayurved Mahavidyalaya,
Arni Road, Shivaji Nagar, Yavatmal
445 001. ... PETITIONERS
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Chief Secretary,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Dy. Secretary,
Department of Medical Education
and Drugs, 9th Floor, G.T. Hospital
Complex, L.T. Marg, Mumbai 01.
3. The Maharashtra University of
Health Sciences, Nashik, Dighori
Road, Mhasrul, Nasik 422 004
through its Vice Chancellor.
4. The Director, Ayurved, Mumbai
Ayush Directorate, Mumbai,
Saint George Hospital Compound,
P. Demelo Road, Fort, Mumbai.
5. The Assistant Director of Ayurved,
State of Maharashtra, New
Administrative Building, Civil Lines,
Nagpur.
6. D.M.M. Ayurved Mahavidyalaya,
Arni Road, Shivaji Nagar, Yavatmal,
through its Principal. ... RESPONDENTS
Shri L.G. Meshram, Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. P.D. Rane, AGP for respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 & 5.
Shri J.B. Jaiswal, Advocate for respondent No. 3.
Shri Bhise, Advocate holding for Shri Ghurde, learned counsel for
respondent No. 6.
.....
::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:57:30 :::
wp2448.15 3
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ.
MARCH 14, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of Shri Meshram, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Rane, learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 & 5, Shri Jaiswal, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and Shri Bhise, Advocate holding for Shri Ghurde, learned counsel for respondent No. 6.
2. The fact that the petitioners have become eligible for grant of Academic Grade Pay (AGP) is not in dispute. The relevant Government Resolution dated 08.09.2011 is on the subject of Revision of pay scales as per recommendations of Sixth Pay Commission. The said benefit has been given to the petitioners. As per clause 3(a)(i), AGP of Rs.6,000/- is sanctioned to them. However, those Assistant Professors, who have completed four years and possess M.D./ M.S./ Ph. D. degree in the relevant discipline are eligible for moving up to AGP of Rs.7,000/-. This benefit of AGP of Rs.7,000/- has not ::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:57:30 ::: wp2448.15 4 been extended to the petitioners.
3. The petitioners have along with the petition, submitted a chart which shows their calculations, date of appointment and also due date for extending benefit of AGP of Rs.7,000/- to them. The data given therein is not in dispute.
4. Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 & 5 have filed reply affidavit and therein it is submitted that this movement from AGP of Rs.6,000/- to Rs.7,000/- is contingent upon fulfillment of certain conditions. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners do not fulfill those conditions or that their institution is not complying with the same. However, it is pointed out that the office of Assistant Director of Ayurvedic, Nagpur, has on 26.06.2014 communicated to five Institutes in Vidarbha region, not to extend AGP of Rs.7,000/-. The reasons in support of this action are not disclosed. In next para of the affidavit, it is submitted that the decision is pending at the Government level and the respondents are awaiting decision of the Government.
::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:57:30 ::: wp2448.15 55. The petitioners have pointed out that a Private College by name Shet Govindji Ravji Ayurved Mahavidyalaya, which is similarly situated, has been given that benefit. Even this fact is not in dispute.
6. In this situation, when there is already a Government Resolution which stipulates that the petitioners are entitled to said benefit, this action of withholding it or awaiting for Government decision is unsustainable.
7. The only question will be to examine the case of each petitioner or then their employer i.e. Respondent No. 6 for eligibility.
8. We, therefore, direct Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 to complete that exercise within three months from today. The benefit of AGP of Rs.7,000/- then shall be released in favour of such of the petitioners as are found eligible by said respondents.
::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:57:30 ::: wp2448.15 69. With these directions and leaving all contentions open, we partly allow the present writ petition and dispose it of. Rule is made absolute in above terms. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE
ig JUDGE
******
*GS.
::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:57:30 :::