Allowed

Girijashankar P. Tiwari and 15 Ors. v. State of Maharashtra through Its Dept. of Education and Anr.

Bombay HC4 Sept 2013WP/528/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Division Bench allowed a writ petition seeking senior pay scale and arrears for teachers appointed before when their institutions received grant-in-aid. Relying on precedents, the court held that the 12-year service period under the 1993 Government Resolution must be computed from the date of appointment, not the date of aid, entitling petitioners to the revised scale.

What did the court decide?

Writ of mandamus granted to accord senior pay scale from the respective date of appointment and direct payment of arrears on that basis.

Girijashankar P. Tiwari and 15 Ors. Vs State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

wp528-13

¶2

vai

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.528 OF 2013

¶5

Prof. G.P. Tiwari & Ors. V/s.

¶6

Deputy Director of Education & Ors.

¶7

...Petitioners

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

Mr.Rajeev Tripathi for the Petitioners.

¶10

Mr.M.D. Naik, A.G.P. for the State – Respondents.

¶11

CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR &

¶12

K.R. SHRIRAM, JJ. DATE : 4TH SEPTEMBER, 2013.

¶13

P.C. :-

¶14

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally.

¶15

The petitioners restricted their claim to prayer (b) by which

¶16

they seek a writ of mandamus to grant them senior pay scale from their respective date of appointments with immediate effect and an order directing the respondents to pay the petitioners arrears on that basis.

¶17

The petitioners are entitled to this relief in view of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Navanath Gangaram Takale vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. The petitioners in the case before us were also appointed prior to the date on which the

¶18

1/3

¶19

wp528-13

¶20

institutions in which they were employed was admitted to grant-inaid. The institution was admitted to grant-in-aid in the year 1993. The petitioners were appointed prior thereto. The question is whether the period of 12 years prescribed by the GR of 1993 requires 12 years period to be computed from the date on which the institution was admitted to grant-in-aid or whether it is liable to be computed from the date on which the petitioners were appointed.

¶21

In view of the judgment of a Division Bench of this court, the petitioners are entitled to succeed. The Division Bench followed the order of the earlier Division Bench which read as under :-

¶22

“6. In the present case, the Petitioner has completed twelve years continuous service on 15th June, 1997. He submitted representation dated 21^st October, 1997 to the Deputy Director of Education pointing out that the college has been given grant-inaid from 1991 and the Auditor has also fixed pay scale by giving protection to the previous service i.e. the service on non-grant basis and claimed that he should be given higher scale as per Government Resolution dated 22^nd January, 1993. It appears that the representation was turned down by the authorities solely on the ground that the twelve years service was not rendered in the grant-in-aid college and the part of the service was when the college was not receiving grant-in-aid.

¶23

In the case of “Davare S.L. : and others v/s The Accounts Officer, Education Department (Secondary), Nasik and others” (Writ Petition No. 4346 of 2000, decided on 14^th September, 2000) a Division Bench of this Court has held that Government Resolution nowhere prescribed that entire service of twelve years has to be in the aided school and, therefore, when the teachers are working in the aided

¶24

2/3

¶25

wp528-13

¶26

they are entitled to revised scale on completion of twelve years even through entire service is not rendered in the aided school.”

¶27

In the circumstances, Rule is made absolute in terms of

¶28

prayer (b). No order as to cost. It is clarified that the petitioners have pressed the petition only on the basis of 1993 GR. They have not pressed the claim in prayer (b) which is with respect to 2006 GR.

¶29

(K.R. SHRIRAM, J.) (S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.)

¶30

3/3

Girijashankar P. Tiwari and 15 Ors. v. State of Maharashtra through Its Dept. of Education and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girijashankar P. Tiwari and 15 Ors. v. State of Maharashtra through Its Dept. of Education and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Skygourmet Catering Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Union of Inbdia and 2 Ors.

Indira Sra Chs Ltd. and 10 Ors. Vs Assistant Registrar Co-Op. Societies a Nd 15 Ors.

Dr. Vyas Rao Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Abdul Salam Fitwalla and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Akil Sohram Bhompuri and Anr. Vs United Welfare Association Mumbai Urdu High School and Ors.

Dr. Ameya Mangesh Tirodkar and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.