Allowed

Syed Ashrafuddin Abdul Samad v. State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC9 Oct 2014WP/1873/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition filed by the legal heirs of a deceased Head Master claiming the pay-scale of a trained teacher. The court relied on a 1974 Memorandum benefiting teachers with Munshi or Matriculation qualifications, ruling in favor of the petitioner despite respondent claims of a 1983 revision order.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition allowed; Rule made absolute.

Syed Ashrafuddin Abdul Samad Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

wp1873.00

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

 WRIT PETITION NO.1873 OF 2000

¶6

Syed Ashrafuddin s/o Abdul Samad,
Age-73 years, Occu:Pensioner,
R/o-Udgir, Dist-Latur.
(Died) Through Legal Heirs:

¶7

1) Ustad Mukhtadir Ashrafoddin, Age-53 years, Occu:Service, Resident of Udgir, Tq-Udgir, Raj Mohammed Darga Road, District-Latur,

¶8

2) Ustad A. Samad Ashrafoddin, Age-58 years, Occu:Business, Resident of as above,

¶9

3) Ustad Anwar Ashrafoddin, Age-55 years, Occu:Business, Resident of as above,

¶10

4) Ustad Ibrahim Ashrafoddin, Age-45 years, Occu:Service, Resident of as above,

¶11

5) Siddiqui Zaibunnisa Begum, Age-57 years, Occu:Household, Resident of as above,

¶12

6) Nafisa Begum Chand Pasha Mashayak, Age-54 years, Occu:Household, Resident of as above,

¶13

...PETITIONERS

¶14

wp1873.00

¶15

¶16

VERSUS

¶17

1) The State of Maharashtra, Through Government Pleader, High Court, Aurangabad,

¶18

2) The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Latur.

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

 ...
 Mrs. A.N. Ansari Advocate for Petitioners.
 Shri S.P. Daund, A.P.P. for Respondent
 No.1.

¶21

 Shri Umakant Wagh Advocate h/f. Shri V.D.
 Hon Advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶22

...

¶23

CORAM: A.V. NIRGUDE AND
 A.I.S. CHEEMA, JJ.

¶24

 DATE : 9TH OCTOBER, 2014

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT [PER A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] :

¶26

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶27

2.The Petitioner claims in this Petition,

¶28

benefit of Memorandum dated 7th August, 1974
issued by the State of Maharashtra. The Memorandum

¶29

was issued after considering the case of one Shri

¶30

wp1873.00

¶31

¶32

M.A. Rashid. The Government of Maharashtra, after
considering the case and claim of Shri Rashid,
appointed as Assistant Teacher by Ex - Hyderabad

¶33

State Authorities held that he was entitled to
trained teacher pay-scale though he was educated
up-to Munshi Examination, which was prevalent
prior to independence. The Government of
Maharashtraalsodeclared,throughthis
Memorandum, that similarly placed teachers having
Munshi which was at par with Matriculation

¶34

qualifications, would be given pay-scale of
trained teacher after 15 years of service of after

¶35

attaining the age of 35 years, whichever is
earlier. They are deemed trained teachers. Number
of Petitions were filed in this Court thereafter
and vide Judgments dated 8th June 2010 (in Writ
Petition No.2455 of 1995 Smt. Sharifabee w/o Late
Sk. Hussain Naikwade vs. The State of Maharashtra
and others, with group of Writ Petitions) and 11th

¶36

June 2010 (in Writ Petition No.3758 of 1994,
Smt.Fatema Bee w/o Late Syed Mohd. Ali vs. The

¶37

wp1873.00

¶38

¶39

State of Maharashtra and others), the Petitioners
therein who were similarly placed, were also given

¶40

benefit of the said Memorandum. All the
Petitioners in those Petitions, possessed either
Matriculation or Munshi qualification.

¶41

3.Present Petition was originally filed by
one Syed Ashrafuddin, who asserted that he rather
possessed qualification of H.S.C., which was
higher than Munshi and Matriculation. He joined
service as Head Master on 22.06.1947 in Ex -
Hyderabad State. He, therefore, claimed the higher
pay-scale of trained teacher. During the pendency
of this Petition, original Petitioner Syed
Ashrafuddin died and this Petition is continued by
his children.

¶42

4.Respondent No.2 submitted an affidavit in
reply and claimed that original Petitioner was not
entitled to such pay-scale because one more Order
was issued by the State of Maharashtra in 1983. On

¶43

wp1873.00

¶44

¶45

perusal of this Order of 1983, it is found that it
is regarding revision of pay-scale of teachers and
employees of Zilla Parishad, revising pay-scale of
1976. On the other hand, Memorandum of 7th August,
1974 is in respect of granting of revised pay-
scale to certain class of teachers employed by
various Zilla Parishads. That class was earlier
treated differently. They possessed qualification
such as Munshi Examination or Matriculation
Examination. The Memorandum clarifies that even
such employees would be entitled to higher pay-
scale after 15 years of service or attaining age
of 35 years, whichever is earlier. The Government
held that in such eventualities, they should be
deemed to be trained teachers and they were
entitled to specified scale.

¶46

5.The reply filed by Respondent No.2 does
not indicate as to why they are opposing the

¶47

demand of the Petitioner in the light of
Memorandum of 1974. The reply does not even make

¶48

wp1873.00

¶49

¶50

mention of the Memorandum of 1974. It is this

¶51

Memorandum on which the Petitioner's claim is
based. The reply does not really help the Court in
deciding the dispute. In view of earlier Judgments
of this Court, referred to above, and in view of
facts of this case, the Writ Petition deserves to
be allowed.

¶52

6.The Writ Petition stands allowed in terms
of Prayer Clause (C). Rule made absolute

¶53

accordingly.

¶54

[A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.] [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.]

¶55

asb/OCT14

Syed Ashrafuddin Abdul Samad v. State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Ashrafuddin Abdul Samad v. State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sopan Vishvanath Gaikwad Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs Kisan Baburao Wakale and Ors.

Syed Shaukat Ali Syed Inamuddin Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Abud Bin Abdulla Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bajranglal Radheshyam Pariyal Vs the Chairman of Board of Director Marathwada and O

Praja Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Nanded Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.