Partly allowed

Maruti Nivrutti Karle v. State of Mah and Anr.

Bombay HC25 Jun 2014WP/3605/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the court held that the petitioner, a teacher who completed D. Ed. in October 2013, is entitled to the pay scale of a trained primary teacher. Although he initially did not meet the 25% criterion for trained graduate teachers, his subsequent qualification enabled him to claim the appropriate pay scale. The court ordered respondents to pay the difference expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is entitled to the pay scale of a trained primary teacher; respondents shall pay the difference accordingly and expeditiously.

Maruti Nivrutti Karle Vs State of Mah and Anr. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

1 wp 3605.05

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 3605 OF 2005

¶4

Maruti S/o Nivruti Karle, Age : 35 Years, Occu. : Service, R/o Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded. .. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary Social Welfare Department Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶7

The Commissioner Social Welfare Department, M. S., Pune.

¶8

The District Social Welfare Officer Social Welfare Office, Nanded.

¶9

The Head Master, Ashram School, Asarjan Camp, Jaiprakash Nagar, Tq. & Dist. Nanded.

¶10

Gayabai Education Society Ekdara, Tq. & Dist. Nanded which runs Ashram School, Asarjan Camp, Jaiprakash Nagar, Nanded Through its President/Secretary. .. Respondents

¶11

Shri A. S. Golegaonkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Smt. M. A. Deshpande, A.G.P. for Respondents/State. Shri M. V. Ghatge, Advocate for the Respondent No. 4. Shri Vijay A. Dhakane, Advocate for the Respondent No. 5.

¶12

2 wp 3605.05

¶13

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND A. M. BADAR, JJ.

¶14

DATE : 25TH JUNE, 2014.

¶15

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S. V. Gangapurwala, J.) :-

¶16

. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing.

¶17

Mr. Golegaonkar, the learned counsel submits that, the petitioner possesses qualification of B. Com B. P. Ed. Subsequently he has also completed D. Ed. in October 2013. The learned counsel submits that, the said primary school has got Vth to VIIth standard attached. The petitioner is required to be paid salary of trained graduate teacher in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Tukaram Tryambak Choudhari and others reported in 2007 AIR SCW 1321 . The learned counsel in the alternate submits that, in any case the petitioner would be entitled for salary of a trained primary teacher.

¶18

Mr. Dhakane, the learned counsel for the institution states that, the petitioner does not come within 25%, as such cannot be considered as a trained graduate teacher.

¶19

Mrs. Deshpande, the learned A. G. P. states that, the qualification for trained primary teacher is D. Ed. As the petitioner was not possessing qualification of D. Ed. his pay scale

¶20

3 wp 3605.05

¶21

has rightly been down graded.

¶22

We have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for respective parties. The Government vide its order dated 11.11.2011 has taken a policy decision that the teachers who are teaching to the primary school and who have B. Ed. and B. P. Ed. qualification are to be treated as trained primary teacher for the purpose of pay scale. Even said policy is applicable to the teachers who are retired. As it is submitted by the institution that the petitioner does not come within 25%, the petitioner would not be certainly entitled for salary of trained graduate teacher. It is also submitted that, the petitioner has already acquired qualification of D. Ed. In the light of that, there would be no impediment to award the petitioner, the pay scale of trained primary teacher.

¶23

In the light of the above, the writ petition is partly allowed. It is held that the petitioner is entitled for the pay scale of trained primary teacher. The respondents shall pay the difference accordingly and expeditiously.

¶24

Rule accordingly is made absolute in above terms. No costs.

¶25

bsb/June 14

Maruti Nivrutti Karle v. State of Mah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maruti Nivrutti Karle v. State of Mah 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raghunath Babulal Mangrule Vs Meerabai Dhanraj Khandare and Another

Yashwant Govinda Mahajan Vs the University Grants Commission and Anr.

Shaikh Baba Faijjoddin Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dhairyasheel Uttamrao Deore Vs the North Maharashtra University Jalgaon and Ors.

Shaikh Babu Shaikh Mannu Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rafiq Khan Salawat Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others