Bombay High Court
Dr. Dashrath Baliram Jadhao vs State Of Mah. Thr. Secy.Higher And ... on 15 March, 2018
Author: B. P. Dharmadhikari
Bench: B.P.Dharmadhikari
1 J-WP-3300-10.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.3300/2010
1. Dr. Dashrath s/o Baliram Jadhao
2. Dr. Kamlesh s/o Shamrao Moon
3. Dr. Pradip S. Muktibodh
4. Dr. Sunil A. Bhagat
5. Dr. Mahendra B. Bagde
6. Dr. Satish G. Goswami
7. Dr. Roy George
8. Dr. Gulab T. Wanjari
9. Dr. Sanjay W. Ghatate
10. Dr.Pravin Joshi
11. Dr.Anil Wasudeo Asole
12. Dr. Ajay H. Ghiya
13. Dr. Suresh S. Darokar
14. Dr. Hemant M. Pande
15. Dr. P.L. Paul
16. Dr.V.P. Akhare
17. Dr. S.V.Bawankar
18. Dr. K.G.Dube
All residents of C/o Dr.Dashrath B.
Jadhao, Plot No.46, Dambhare
Layout, Trimurti Nagar, Ring Road,
Nagpur-440022. ..... PETITIONERS
...V E R S U S...
1. State of Maharashtra
through its Secretary,
Higher and Technical Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Joint Director of Higher Education,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur. ... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Devdatta Deshpande, Advocate h/f Shri Anand Parchure, Advocate for the
petitioners.
Ms. Tajwar Khan, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:-
B.P.DHARMADHIKARI &
ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.
DATED :
15/03/2018.
::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2018 01:37:31 :::
2 J-WP-3300-10.odt
JUDGMENT :(PER B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
1. Heard Shri Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Khan, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.
2. We need not delve into specific facts as the same are not in dispute. The petitioners admittedly earlier working as teachers in High School, have been selected and recruited as lecturers in Junior College on different dates. They at that juncture, already had Ph.D. to their credit and therefore, claim four increments on its strength, as per Clause-11 of the Government Resolution dated 11 th December, 1999 issued by the Higher and Technical Education Department of Government of Maharashtra.
3. During arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that selection and appointment as lecturer in Senior College is new recruitment and hence, on 1 st March, 1999, the State Government has consciously resolved and protected the pay of the petitioners in terms of Rule 11 of The Maharashtra Civil Services (Pay) Rules, 1981. Our attention has also been been invited to few instances disclosed in paragraph No.6 of counter affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners to show as to how lecturers in Senior College situated similarly have been given that benefit.
4. Ms. Khan, learned A.G.P. has, however, submitted that decision of the State Government dated 11 th December, 1999 cannot be ::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2018 01:37:31 ::: 3 J-WP-3300-10.odt construed independently and must be understood in backdrop of earlier Government Resolution dated 27/02/1989, particularly Clause-10 therein. She submits that as mentioned therein, object was to encourage research in continuation of post graduate studies and therefore, three advance increments have been sanctioned only to those recruits, who complete research and obtain Ph.D. in continuation of post graduate studies. She submits that thus, the recruitment envisaged in Clause-10 is first job or first entry into service. Here, petitioners had already started working as teachers in Junior College and thereafter, have improved their qualification. Submission is, therefore, the Clause-10 is not attracted in their case.
5. Inviting attention to a chart placed on record as Annexure-R-II with reply affidavit of the respondents, she points out as to how grant of four advance increments result, in prejudice to the petitioners. In that event, their fixation as lecturer in pay scale goes below the stage at which it has been fixed after extending them pay protection, as stipulated in Government Resolution dated 1 st March, 1999. She submits that protection in pay and advance increments are two distincts and mutually exclusive concepts. The petitioners, therefore, cannot claim both together. Lastly, she has that, in view of clear stipulation in various Government Resolutions, if in some stray cases, benefit is wrongly released, that by itself, cannot clothe petitioners with any right.
::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2018 01:37:31 :::
4 J-WP-3300-10.odt
6. After hearing respective counsel, we find that consideration of controversy again say of beginning with Clause-10 in Government Resolution dated 27/02/1989. Said clause reads as under :-
Clause-10 : In order to encourage research, in continuation of post-graduate studies, candidates, who at the time of their recruitment as Lecturers/Librarian/Physical Education Staff possess Ph.D. or M. Phil. degree, will be sanctioned three and one advance increments respectively in the scale of Rs.2200-4000 alongwith the benefit of corresponding years of service for the promotion. The existing incumbents without research degree and those similarly situate, recruited in future will be eligible for a similar benefit in service for the purpose of promotion as and when they acquire research degrees, but will not be eligible for advance increments. Existing incumbents with research degree will also be eligible for a similar benefit.
7. This clause in its opening part therefore, clearly discloses the object behind sanctioning three increments in advance to those who possess Ph.D. at the time of their recruitment. Object is to encourage research in continuation of post graduate studies. Thus, to encourage post graduate persons to complete research in continuation of their post graduate studies and not to opt for some service or shift to other avenue, the incentive has been stipulated. When this arrangement kept in mind, it is apparent that person recruited has to show that he has completed Ph.D. in continuation of his post graduate studies. A break in studies after post graduation and registering for Ph.D. after ::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2018 01:37:31 ::: 5 J-WP-3300-10.odt some time gap after post graduation is discouraged. Mere Ph.D., therefore, by itself will not qualify incumbent to claim these three increments as advance increments.
8. However, after this, the State Government has issued another Government Resolution dated 11th December, 1999. This Government Resolution in its opening part makes reference to the Government Resolution dated 27/02/1989 (supra) at Sr.No.1. The purpose of this Government Resolution is revision of pay scales of teachers and other measures for maintenance of standards in higher education in Clause-11. Again, there is reference of advance increments conferred upon the teachers with Ph.D. or M.Phil. Degree. This clause reads as under :-
Clause-11 : Incentives for Ph.D. / M.Phil.
Four and two advance increments will be admissible to those who hold Ph.D. and M. Phil degrees respectively at the time of recruitment as Lecturers. Candidates with D./Litt/D.Sc. should be given benefit on par with Ph.D. and M. litt on part with M. Phil. One increment will be admissible to those teachers with M. Phil. who acquire Ph.D. within two years of recruitment.
A Lecturer with Ph. D. will be eligible for two advance increments when she/he moves in to selection Grade/Reader.
A teacher will be eligible for two advance increments as and when she/he acquires a Ph.D. degree in her / his service career.
9. Perusal of this clause, therefore, shows that those who hold Ph.D. at the time of recruitment as lecturer, are eligible for four advance increments. We need not refer to other part but then one ::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2018 01:37:31 ::: 6 J-WP-3300-10.odt increment is admissible to those who already have acquired Ph.D. within two years of recruitment. Later, two paragraphs not re-produced since not relevant for our purpose, show that a teacher is made eligible to two advance increments as and when he/she acquires Ph.D. Degree in her / his service career. Together therefore, intention to give benefit to those who secure Ph.D. is apparent. If Ph.D. is procured while in service, two advance increments are conferred. A teacher entering in service with M.Phil. Degree, if he acquires Ph.D. degree within two years of recruitment, gets one increment. Similarly, those who enter in service as lecturer with Ph.D. are given four advance increments. One apparently notices an anomaly because a teacher entering with M.Phil Degree and obtaining Ph. D. within two years, gets only one advance increment, while his counterpart who may obtain Ph.D. at any time during his service career, gets two advance increments. We are not concerned with this controversy and hence, we are not recording any finding about the correctness or propriety of this scheme but then word "recruitment" here expressly means recruitment as lecturer. The recruitment as lecturer as per the Government Resolution dated 11 th December, 1999 has to be in a Senior College.
10. This Government Resolution deviates materially from earlier Government Resolution dated 27/02/1989. Earlier Government Resolution dated 27/02/1989 in Clause-10, confers only three advance increments on those who upon recruitment, join as lecturer with Ph.D. ::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2018 01:37:31 ::: 7 J-WP-3300-10.odt This Government Resolution has been referred to in later Government Resolution and improvement made is instead of three increments, four increments have been prescribed. We have also briefly referred to its scheme. Government Resolution dated 11 th December, 1999 therefore, cannot be understood in the backdrop of earlier Government Resolution dated 27/02/1989. Clause-11 in later Government Resolution, therefore, cannot be construed in the light of Clause-10 of earlier Government Resolution dated 27/02/1989.
11. The perusal of third Government Resolution with which we are concerned i.e. Government Resolution dated 1 st March, 1999 is necessary. It reveals an effort to protect pay of teacher in Junior College after his appointment as a lecturer in Senior College. The State Government has taken note of fact that this appointment in Senior College as a lecturer is new appointment and hence, they are fixed at the beginning of pay scale applicable to the post of lecturer. Because of this, State Government has thought it proper to extend benefit of pay protection to such teachers and in paragraphs No.2 has pointed out procedure as stipulated in Rule 11 of The Maharashtra Civil Services (Pay) Rules, 1981 to be adopted for this purpose. This Government Resolution therefore, specifically takes note of fact that selection and appointment of teacher in Junior College as lecturer in Senior College is new recruitment.
::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2018 01:37:31 :::
8 J-WP-3300-10.odt
12. After this Government Resolution, the Government Resolution dated 11th December, 1999 (supra) has been issued by very same Department of the State Government. This Government Resolution in Clause-11 only uses the words "recruitment as lecturer". It does not speak of a need of procuring Ph.D. in continuation of post graduate studies. Language employed therein is very clear and those recruited with Ph.D. are made entitled to four advance increments. This clear language therefore, cannot be curtailed and its sweep cannot be narrowed by taking help of Clause-10 of the Government Resolution dated 27/02/1989.
13. In view of this discussion, pay protection becomes an independent exercise which has got no bearing of advance increments. Advance increments are to be granted only to a teacher in Junior College, who is recruited as lecturer with Ph.D., while pay protection is admissible to even a teacher without such Ph.D.
14. We, therefore, find that the petitioners before us are entitled to four advance increments as per the Government Resolution dated 11th December, 1999. We accordingly, direct the respondents to release the same with consequential benefits to the petitioners, within six months from today. Needless to add that last pay of such of the petitioners who have retired during pendency of petition, shall also be revised accordingly and they shall also be entitled to revised pension with arrears.
::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2018 01:37:31 :::
9 J-WP-3300-10.odt
15. The writ petition is thus allowed and disposed of. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Choulwar
::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2018 01:37:31 :::