Dismissed

State of Maharashtra, through Secretary,Govt. Maharashtra, Education and Employment Department and v. Kumudini Rambhan Adewar

Bombay HC10 Aug 2012WP/3197/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the Tribunal's order granting parity relief to respondent teacher based on factual similarity with three other cases. The High Court found substantial justice already served and dismissed the writ petition without setting aside the Tribunal's decision.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; order of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal sustained; no costs.

State of Maharashtra, through Secretary,Govt… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

100812wpno.3197.12. 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶3

Writ Petition No. 3197 of 2012

¶4

State of Maharashtra, through Secretary to Government of Maharashtra, Education and Employment Department, Mantralaya,Mumbai and others vs. Kumudini Rambhan Adewar

¶5

Notes, Office Memoranda of

¶6

Coram, appearances, Court's orders

¶7

Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders.

¶8

Mr. A.M.Joshi, AGP for petitioners. Mr. M.I.Dhatrak, Advocate for respondent.

¶9

CORAM : S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & M. T. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 10.8.2012

¶10

Heard, the learned AGP appearing for the

¶11

petitioners. He submits that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal suffers from serious legal infirmities as much as the Tribunal has failed to appreciate that Rule 64 of the Maharashtra Civil Services Rules (Joining Time, Foreign Service and Suspension, Termination) 1981 (hereinafter referred as The Rules), is inapplicable. Once that argument of the petitioners is accepted and benefits of the said Rule could

¶12

have been given to the respondent, then, granting benefits in

¶13

100812wpno.3197.12. 2

¶14

terms of the other cases, was impermissible unless the other cases were found to be completely at par with the original respondents. The material in that behalf has not been perused and equally what the Tribunal overlooked was that in the case of Vinaykumar Mahadeorao Farkade in Original Application No. 127/97 which was decided with Original Application No. 365/98, the Tribunal has passed order on 9.8.1998 and upheld the objection of the very nature which has been raised by the present petitioners. Once, these Judgments and orders were brought to the notice of the Tribunal in this case, then, it was incumbent upon the Tribunal to have considered the same and passed a proper and reasoned order. These omissions are glaring and, therefore, the impugned order can be said to be vitiated by errors apparent on the face of the record and deserves to be interfered with.

¶15

On the other hand, Mr. Dhatrak, learned counsel for the respondent supported the conclusion in the impugned order and submitted that by applying the principle of parity relief could have been granted.

¶16

What we find from the record is and which is

¶17

100812wpno.3197.12. 3

¶18

undisputed that the respondent- applicant was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the year 1960. She was sent on deputation to the Zilla Parishad in 1962. On getting Bachelor Degree in Arts, she was granted Higher Pay Scale of Rs. 1400-2600 by the Zilla Parishad with effect from 1.1.1986. She was repatriated vide order dated 24th December, 1991 and relieved from the Zilla Parishad on 10.1.1992 but upon repatriation she was posted as Upper Division Assistant Teacher in the Pay Scale of Rs. 1400-2600 and thereafter posted at Government Teachers Training Institution, Nagpur. Thereafter, she was granted Higher Pay Scale of Rs. 16402900 applicable to Secondary Teachers.

¶19

Some time in the year 1995, the Deputy Director of Education realised the anomaly and raised an objection that the respondent was placed in the Pay Scale of Assistant Teacher Lower Grade when she was on deputation, and on repatriation from the Zilla Parishad, she should be placed in the same Pay Scale and her Pay should be fixed. This is because had she not proceeded on deputation to Zilla Parishad, she would have been remained a Lower Grade Assistant Teacher. It appears that the Principal of District

¶20

100812wpno.3197.12. 4

¶21

Education and Training Institute informed the respondent that as per Rule 64, the Pay on repatriation cannot be fixed taking into consideration the Pay drawn during deputation and that is why in terms of the objection raised by the Deputy Director, he determined the Pay Scale of Rs. 1400-2600 and then ordered recovery of Rs. 36,613/- as excess pay and that is how she filed this Original Application No. 640/98 in which final order has been passed on 22.11.2011.

¶22

Upon hearing the learned AGP at some length and despite his persuasive pleas, we are unable to hold that the Tribunal has committed any grave error of law apparent on the face of record requiring our interference in writ jurisdiction. Equally, we do not find that the order suffers from any perversity. Leaving aside the Tribunal's reference to Rule 64 and its interpretation with which we are not concerned what we find on facts is that respondent's case was similar to three others. They had also been promoted and granted Pay Scale of Upper Division Teachers on acquiring higher qualification. Therefore, had the respondent continued in the Government Service and issue of her deputation and repatriation is kept aside, by virtue of Higher Qualification that she obtained in

¶23

100812wpno.3197.12. 5

¶24

1973, she would have been placed on the same Pay Scale and of the Post of Upper Division Teacher. The Tribunal directed the petitioners to produce a chart with regard to different Pay Scales and particularly in the case of Amrutkar, Paunikar and Mishra. The chart was to indicate details from the year 1960 to 92 which covers the period during which respondent was on deputation of Zilla Parishad.

¶25

Upon finding that service details of these three teachers being similar to that of the respondent and that on the footing once she acquired higher qualification which would have given her benefit of Higher Pay Scale had she continued in government Service, the Tribunal granted necessary and requisite relief. Essentially, it is granted in the facts and circumstances brought on record and on finding that the respondent's case was completely at par with the three employees in question.

¶26

Therefore, it is not necessary to go to any other questions and particularly the contentions raised by the AGP. We are of the opinion that the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal shall not be taken as conclusive and

¶27

100812wpno.3197.12. 6

¶28

binding in so far as the interpretation to Rule 64 of the said Rules is concerned and equally the order passed in the present case shall not be treated as precedent in all such cases. Clarifying this, we dismiss this writ petition. We are of the opinion that being a single employee and the case essentially turning on facts and substantial justice having been done, interference under Article 226 is not necessary. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.

¶29

JUDGE JUDGE

¶30

patle

¶31

100812wpno.3197.12. 7

State of Maharashtra, through Secretary,Govt. Maharashtra, Education and Employment Department and v. Kumudini Rambhan Adewar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Maharashtra, through Secretary,Govt. Maharashtra, Education and Employment Department and v. Kumudini Rambhan Adewar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nallni Wd/O Satishchandra Bute and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Town Planning Department and 2 Others

Namdeo S/O Domaji Dhabale Vs the Union of India, Department of Telecommunication, Thr. Advisor (Human Resource Deptt.) and 4 Oth

Gokulsingh S/O Shivsingh Lakhwal and 2 Ors. Vs the Edun. Officer (Sec.) Zp, Buldhana and 2 Ors.

Radheshyam S/O Mahadeoji Jais Vs Manohar S/O Parasram Narad and Anr.

Smt. Savita Wd/O Pandurang Rathod and Ors. Vs the State of Mah.and Others

Maharashtra State Power Generating Company Ltd. Mumbai Vs Western Coalfields Ltd. and Others