Bombay High Court
Dr. Mrs. Vaijayanti W/O Jayant Aparajit ... vs State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 17 February, 2016
Author: Vasanti A. Naik
Bench: Vasanti A. Naik
wp1279.15.odt 1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.1279 OF 2015
PETITIONERS: 1. Dr. (Mrs.) Vaijayanti w/o Jayant
Aparajit, aged 61 years, Occu: Service,
R/o Alka, Modi No.3, Sitabuldi, Nagpur.
2. Dr. (Mrs.) Vijaya Shivram katkar, Aged
60 years, Occu: Service, R/o 172,
Surendra Nagar, Nagpur.
-VERSUS-
RESPONDENTS:
ig 1. State of Maharashtra through its
Secretary, Department of Higher and
Technical Education, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 400032.
2. The Director of Higher Education, State
of Maharashtra, Central Building,
Pune-1.
3. The Joint Director of Higher Education,
State of Maharashtra, Nagpur Division,
Nagpur.
4. Dharampeth M. P. Deo Memorial
Science College, Nagpur, through its
Principal, North Ambazari Road, Near
Ambazari Lake, Nagpur.
Shri B. G. Kulkarni, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri A. S. Fulzele, Additional Government Pleader for respondent
Nos.1 to 3.
CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK
AND
A.S. CHANDURKAR JJ.
DATED
: 17
th
FEBRUARY, 2016.
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 05:35:55 :::
wp1279.15.odt 2/3
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
By this petition, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to step up the basic pay band of the petitioners to Rs.59,300/- as on 1-9-2008 and to revise the pay accordingly within a time frame.
ig Shri B. G. Kulkarni, the learned Counsel for the petitioners states that the case of the petitioner stands fully covered by the judgment of the Aurangabad Bench of this Court dated 21-11-2013 in a bunch of the writ petitions bearing Writ Petition No.10283/2012 and others. It is stated that the State had challenged the said judgment before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but the Special Leave Petition was dismissed.
Shri A. S. Fulzele, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 does not dispute the factual statements made on behalf of the petitioners. It is stated after perusal of the writ petition and the aforesaid judgment that the case of the petitioners appears to have been covered by the judgment.
In view of the aforesaid, we partly allow the writ ::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 05:35:55 ::: wp1279.15.odt 3/3 petition. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 are directed to take necessary steps to step up the pay of the petitioners so as to bring them at par with their juniors so that they should not be discriminated only because the junior teachers had acquired Ph.D. Degree while the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission were in force. In terms of the judgment dated 21-11-2013 in Writ Petition No.10283/2012, we direct the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to re-fix the pay of the petitioners and pay the arrears to the petitioners within a period of four months.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
//MULEY//
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 05:35:55 :::