Bombay High Court
Shubhangi Girgaonkar W/O Ajay ... vs State Of Maharahstra, Thr. Its ... on 4 March, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 BOM 277
Author: Vinay Joshi
Bench: A. S. Chandurkar, Vinay Joshi
916-J-WP-3594-18 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.3594 OF 2018
Shubhangi Girgaonkar w/o Ajay Girgaonkar,
Maiden Name Miss Shubhangi Manohar Khalatkar,
aged about 59 years, R/o 380, Shri Nagar
Narendra Nagar, Ring Road, Near Gajghate Daily
Needs Shop, Vikekanand Nagar,
S.O. Nagpur 440025. ... Petitioner
-vs-
1. State of Maharashtra
Through its Principal Secretary,
Higher and Technical Education Department,
Mantralaya, Annex, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Director of Higher Education,
Maharashtra State, Central Building,
Pune Region, District Pune,
3. The Joint Director of Higher Education,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur 440012
4. Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur
University Through its Registrar,
Rabindranath Tagore Road, Nagpur
5. L.A.D. & Smt R. P. College for
Women, Through its Principal,
Shankar Nagar, Nagpur ... Respondents
Shri Devdatta Deshpande, Advocate h/f Shri Anand Parchure, Advocate for
petitioner.
Shri M. A. Kadu, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Shri P. B. Patil, Advocate for respondent No.4.
Shri Akshay Naik, Advocate for respondent No.5.
::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/03/2020 16:28:26 :::
916-J-WP-3594-18 2/4
CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND VINAY JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : MARCH 04, 2020 Oral Judgment : (Per : Vinay Joshi, J.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the parties.
The challenge in this writ petition is for stepping up of pay- scale so as to equate to the salaries of the junior. Dr Madhuri M. Datalakar was drawing higher salary by virtue of acquiring Ph.D. qualification.
2. The petitioner has completed her M.A. B.Ed and was appointed on the post of full time lecturer from 23/08/1985 with respondent No.5-College run by respondent No.4. Another lecturer Dr Madhuri Datalkar was appointed on the same post on 02/09/1986 that is subsequent to the petitioner. The pay-scale of the petitioner as well as Dr Datalkar was same on fixation of pay on implementation of 5 th Pay Commission. However, on 01/07/2010 pay of Dr Datalkar was fixed in terms of Government Resolution dated 12/08/2009 about advance increment on completing Ph.D. degree. On such fixation pay- scale of Dr Datalkar became higher than the petitioner.
3. According to the petitioner she has acquired Ph.D. qualification much prior to Dr Datalakar however her pay became less ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/03/2020 16:28:26 ::: 916-J-WP-3594-18 3/4 than her and therefore to remove this anomaly, she seeks for stepping up her pay-scale to make it equal to her junior. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the controversy is covered by the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No.10283/2012 (Sudamrao Keshawrao Aher and ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors.) decided on 21/11/2013. The relevant portion of the decision is reproduced as herein below :
" Question before us is, whether this is appropriate or the position is required to be corrected by stepping up the pay of the petitioners so as to be equivalent to the junior. The petitioners have pointed out in Para 7 of the Petition that the anomaly exists because teachers junior to Petitioners who have been awarded Ph.D. Degrees after 1st January 2006 are entitled to three non compoundable increments. When Petitioners completed their Ph.D. Degrees before 1st January 2006, they were entitled to get only two increments of Rs.420/- each, totalling to Rs.840/-, while teachers who got their Ph.D. Degrees subsequently, got their salary increased by almost Rs.9000/- per month, inclusive of three additional increments and other allowances."
4. Moreover it is pointed out that in another decision of this Court in Writ Petition No.4992/2014 (Dr Bhanumati Malewar and ors. vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.) decided on 22/12/2014 the same issue is dealt and stepping up was granted to equate the pay of senior to his junior. The issue involved is no more res integra. Thus the anomaly which has occasioned has caused injustice and therefore it ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/03/2020 16:28:26 ::: 916-J-WP-3594-18 4/4 requires to be removed by granting higher pay-scale to the petitioner at par with her junior.
5. In view of above we direct the respondent Nos.2 to make pay fixation of the petitioner in pay band as fixed for her junior Dr Datalkar on acquiring Ph.D qualification. This exercise shall be carried out within period of eight weeks from today and arrears be paid within next four weeks thereafter. As of now the petitioner is already retired on 31/08/2018. Hence the petitioner is entitled for retiral benefits on the basis of such stepping up of pay-scale.
Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order a to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Asmita
::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/03/2020 16:28:26 :::