Dismissed

Vaidya Vikas Charandas Kathane v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Aug 2005WP/2174/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a lecturer with a Diploma in Swasthavritta, challenged the rejection of his claim for higher start-up pay. The Bench held that the benefit attached only to holders of MD/MS qualifications and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; higher start-up pay claim rejected as petitioner did not possess stipulated MD/MS qualification.

Vaidya Vikas Charandas Kathane Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.2174 OF 2005

¶4

Vaidya Vikas Charandas Kathane. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶5

...Petitioner.

¶6

...Respondents.

¶7

Mr. R. K. Mendadkar for the Petitioner. Mr.Bhushan Kakade, AGP for the Respondents.

¶8

CORAM : A.P. SHAH AND

¶9

DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, JJ.

¶10

August 5, 2005.

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

The Petitioner has in these proceedings under Article

¶13

226 of the Constitution, prayed for the issuance of a writ, directing the Directorate of Ayurveda (the Second Respondent), to grant to the Petitioner, a higher start up pay of Rs.2500/- in the pay scale of Rs.2200-4000. The Petitioner holds a degree qualification of BAMS and a Post Graduate Diploma in Swasthavritta. He was appointed on the post of a Lecturer on 31^st July 2003 in the pay scale of Rs.2200-4000. It has been averred that the services of the

¶14

Petitioner were regularised in the post of Lecturer with effect from 25^th August 1993. Representations were submitted by the Petitioner to the Second Respondent on 9^th July 2002, 29^th

¶15

¶16

October 2002 and 9^th October 2003. The Second Respondent rejected the representations on 20^th May 2004. Another representation was submitted on 2^nd July 2004 and eventually these proceedings have been instituted before the Court.

¶17

We had, during the course of these proceedings, called upon Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner to establish the basis in law upon which a claim for higher basic pay is founded. The letter of 21^st November 2003 (Exhibit C) addressed by the Central Council of Indian Medicine to the Registrar of the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences only adverts to several Diploma Courses including Swasthavritta and envisages that in the absence of a Degree holder in the concerned subjects, a Diploma holder may be appointed subject to the other conditions contained in the Regulations. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has sought to place reliance upon a Government Resolution dated 27^th March 1989, a copy of which is annexed at Exh.E to the petition. Ex-facie, the provision for a higher start up pay of Rs.2500/-, that is made in Appendix-I to the Government Resolution is not applicable to the Petitioner since under the heading 'Medical and Dental Colleges' it has been laid down that a

¶18

¶19

Lecturer with MD/MS qualification would be eligible for a higher start at Rs.2500/- in the pay scale of Rs.2200-4000. Admittedly, the Petitioner does not possess either the MD or an MS qualification. He, therefore, does not fall within the parameters of the Government Resolution for allowing a higher start up basic pay. Higher basic pay is attached to the holder of a specified qualification. The mere fact that the Central Council of Indian Medicine permits the appointment of a Diploma holder in the absence of a Degree holder, would not entitle him to a higher basic pay, in a case such as the present, where he does not possess the qualification stipulated for a higher basic pay. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the petition. The Petition is accordingly dismissed.

Vaidya Vikas Charandas Kathane v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vaidya Vikas Charandas Kathane v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arun Bhagwan Sawant Vs Gram Panchayat Vairag and Ors.

Shankar Sahadev Waghmare Vs Jawaharlal Nehru Institute of Education Science and Technology Research and Ors.

Vashigaon Gramastha Mandal and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vithoba Nama Ramoshi (Madane) and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shailesh Deelip Khandagale Vs Chief Exeuctive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Sangli and Ors.

Nishet Louis Pareira Vs the Collector and Ors.