Allowed

Shivaji University Teachers Association and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC2 May 2014WP/6666/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Current chamber allowed writ petitions seeking pension fixation for college teachers who retired before 1.1.1996. The Court held that pre-1996 and post-1996 retirees constitute a single class and held them entitled to minimum pay fixation of Rs.14,940 under the 11.12.1999 Government Resolution.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to fix pay at Rs. 14,940 within four months, pay pension arrears, and pay 8% interest from 01.12.2012.

Shivaji University Teachers Association and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

wp-5466-06-G

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 5466 OF 2006

¶5

1.	Shivaji University Teachers Association ] having its Registered Office at 1735 C ] Hatti Mahal Road, Kolhapur 416 002 ]
2.	Patil Yashwant Bandu, age 73 ] At Post Shirgaon, Tal : Walwa, ] Dist : Sangli 416 313 ]
3.	Jadhv Tanajirao Hanmantrao, 72 ] 27/1209, 'Shreya', Ram Nagar, ] Osmanabad 413 501 ]
4.	Mrs. Valke Sudha Vilas, 65 ] 59/D, 'A' Ward, Shivaji Peth, ] Kolhapur 416 012 ]
5.	Chavan Yashoda Arun, 70 ] Shree Niwas, Kavi Girish Marg, ] Vishrambag, Sangli ]
6.	Keche Krishna Mahadev, 71 ] 278, Ashiyana, Ratnappa Kumbhar Nagar ] Kolhapur 13 ]
7.	Mahajan Shridhar Dattatraya, 72 ] Mahajan Apartments, ] 117, Budhwar Peth, Jogeshwari Lane, ] Pune 411 022 ]
8.	Kukde Narendra Ramchandra, 73 ] F-235, Commercial House, Tarabai Park ] Kolhapur ]
9.	Datar Achyut Anant, 72 ] Anant-Krupa, 211 Vijay Colony ] Govt. Colony, Vishrambag, Sangli 416115 ]
10.	Ambardekar Narayan Shankar, 75 ] 'Saitya Sai Ram', Vidya Vihar Colony ] Vishrambag, Sangli 416 415 ]

¶6

	2	wp-5466-06-G
11.	Kolhapure Ramkrishna Gopal, 76 3098, A Ward, Mahadwar Road, Kolhapur	] ] ]
12.	Joshee Vishwas Bhikaji, 77 A-3, Manogat Bungalow, Aniket Society No. 1, Old Bibwewadi Road Pune 411 035	] ] ] ]
13.	Sabnis Dattatraya Shripad, 74 Guru Prasad, Tanawade Plots Vishrambag, Sangli 416 415	] ] ]
14.	Patankar Vasant Madhav, 74 'Aarohee', Laxmi Nagar, Phaltan 415 523	] ] ]
15.	Pawar Lalasaheb Hindurao, 71 'Parag', Laxmi Nagar, Phaltan 415 523	] ]
16.	Desai Prabhakar Hari, 72 34/F-2, Priyadarshini, Rankala Park, Kolhapur 416 010	] ] ]
17.	Sasnur V. Balawantappa, 71 Shikarevale, Brahmanpuri, Miraj – 416 410	] ] ]
18.	Nalawaday K. Shripat, 70 A-41, Ram Apartment, Nadi Ves, Ichalkaranji 416 115	] ] ]
19.	Bhadibhade S. Ganesh, 71 Flat No. 1, First floor, Prabhakar Heights Nagala Park, Kolhapur	] ] ]
20.	Kulkarni P. Uddhav, 72 45, Sankyuta Maharashtra Housing Society, Rajarampuri, 13^thLane, Kolhapur	] ] ] ]..Petitioners
	versus	]
1.	State of Maharashtra through Higher & Technical Department	] ]

¶7

wp-5466-06-G

¶8

¶9

2.	Shivaji University University Campus, Kolhapur	] ]
3.	The Accountant General	]
	(Accounts Grant), Maharashtra -1	]
	having its office at 101, Maharshi Karve	]
	Road, Mumbai 400 020	]..Respondents

¶10

WITH

¶11

	WRIT PETITION NO. 6666 OF 2006
1.	Shivaji University Teachers Association ]
2.	Badve Vasant Vithoba, Age 72 ]
3.	Kulkarni Laxman Vinayak, Age 70 ]
4.	Patil Chandrakant Iroji, age 73 ]
5.	Patil K. Ramgonda, 71 ]
6.	More Vasant Keshav ]
7.	Bhanushali S. Gopal ]..Petitioners
	versus
1.	State of Maharashtra ]
2.	Shivaji University ]
3.	The Accountant General (Accounts Grants)]..Respondents
	WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6680 OF 2006
1.	Shivaji University Teachers Association ]
2.	Kulkarni R. Atmaram, Age 72 ]
3.	Mane V. Dnyandev, Age 70 ]
4.	Goud L. Malikarjun ]..Petitioners
	versus
1. 2.	State of Maharashtra ] The Accountant General (Accounts Grants)]..Respondents
Mr. Sate	C. G. Gavnekar with Mr. Suhas S. Deokar i/b. Mr. L. T. lkar for Petitioners.
Mrs.	M. P. Thakur – A.G.P. the Respondent No. 1 – State.

¶12

wp-5466-06-G

¶13

¶14

CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA AND M. S. SONAK, JJ.

¶15

Date of Reserving the Judgment : 28.04.2014 Date of Pronouncing the Judgment : 02.05.2014

¶16

JUDGMENT [PER : M.S. SONAK, J.]

¶17

1] In these batch of petitions, the college teachers affiliated to Shivaji University and who retired from services prior to 1.1.1996 after serving for more than five years in the pay scale of 3700-5700 (Selection Grade) seek pension/family pension of Rs.14,940/corresponding to the revised scale of Rs.12000-420-18300, notwithstanding the cut off date of 1.1.1996.

¶18

2] The respondents, in their returns filed way back on 2.8.2007, contend that the cut off date of 1.1.1996 was fixed by taking into account of relevant considerations and eschewing irrelevant ones. Accordingly, there is no reason to fault classification between pre 1996 retirees and post.

¶19

3] In our opinion, there is no necessity to once again adjudicate rival contentions in the light of the judgment and order dated 1.8.2012 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.2630 of 2010 (Chandrakant J. Dangre vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors.) and Writ Petition No.2957 of 2010 (Shrinivas S. Patwardhan vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors.) in virtually

¶20

wp-5466-06-G

¶21

¶22

identical circumstances. The issue involved in these batch of cases is covered by the issue decided in the said decisions and such decisions therefore will govern the fate of these batch of petitions.

¶23

4] There is no serious dispute that the payment of pension/family pension to college teachers is, inter alia , governed by Government Resolution dated 11.12.1999 issued by the Department of Higher and Technical Education, Government of Maharashtra, which mandates fixation of pay of lecturer (selection grade) at minimum of Rs.14940/- in the revised scale of Rs.12000420-18300 as and when they complete five years in the grade. The relevant remark in Appendix-I to the Government Resolution dated 11.12.1999 reads thus:-

¶24

“The fixation of pay of Lecturers (Selection Grade)/Readers in the pre-revised scale of Rs.3700125-4950-150-5700 who were selected strictly in accordance with the rules and regulations framed by the UGC and who were in position as Lecturers made in a manner that they get their pay fixed at the minimum of Rs.14490/- in the revised scale of Rs.12000-420-18300 as and when they complete five years in the grade."

¶25

5] In the case of Chandrakant J. Dangre (supra) , the Division Bench of this Court in virtually identical circumstances has held as follows:

¶26

7. The respondents have, accordingly, extended benefit of wage revision to the petitioners and their pension has also been calculated by revising their earlier wages in revised scale of Rs.12000-18300/. The only

¶27

wp-5466-06-G

¶28

¶29

question is whether their pay should have been fixed at Rs.14,940/- as observed in the remarks quoted above, because they had put in five years service in the said grade or selection grade in pre-revised scale of Rs. 37005700.

¶30

8. The issue is squarely covered by the decision in the case of D.S. Nakara vs Union of India - AIR 1983 SC 130, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has found that all pensioners constitute a single homogeneous class and no norm can be inserted or used to discriminate amongst them.

¶31

9. Here, it is apparent that the office of the Accountant General, Mumbai has correctly interpreted afore-quoted remarks and has accordingly fixed basic pension of concerned pensioners after accepting minimum wage at Rs.14,940/-. However, the Office of the Accountant General, Nagpur appears to have adopted different policy. In scale of Rs. 12000-420-18300, if a person is fixed at stage of Rs. 12000/, in five years he would reach stage of 14,100/. He would be required to earn two more increments of Rs. 420/ each to earn his wages at rs. 14,940/. Thus normally after 7 years that stage can be achieved. The stipulation or remark mandates that after 5 years in selection grade, the lecturer has to get Rs.14,940/- therefore can be adhered to if one is fixed at Rs. 12,840/- on 1.1.1996. This grant of two advance increments is not expressly mentioned anywhere & that does not appear to be the spirit of the “remark”. Words “scale” & “grade” employed therein do not convey same concept. Thus “remark” puts emphasis on completion of 5 years in selection grade & eligibility to receive Rs.14,940/ in pay-scale at said completion. Putting in 5 years service in revised scale of Rs.12000-420-18300 is not envisaged or expected at all. Hence, date 1.1.1996 on which revised pay structure comes into force is not significant at all.

¶32

10. The petitioners, whether they retire before or after 1.1.1996, in present facts, constitute only one class & have been recognized as such qua the pension computation exercise and therefore only, respondents have revised petitioners' wages and extended to them the benefit of revised scale of Rs.12000-18300/. However, the more beneficial term which required the petitioners' pay to be fixed at Rs14,940/-, when they put

¶33

wp-5466-06-G

¶34

¶35

in five years service in selection grade which they claim to have put prior to their retirement; has not been extended to them. No reason is being assigned for not doing so.

¶36

11. We, therefore, find that the denial by Respondents to fix petitioners' pay at minimum i.e. Rs.14,940/- is arbitrary, unfounded and hence, unsustainable. In this situation, we direct the Respondents to undertake exercise of revising the wages of petitioners in accordance with remark appearing in appendix-I to Govt. Resolution dated 11.12.1999 quoted above and if they satisfy the terms & conditions in said “remark” , their pay be fixed at Rs.14,940/- and thereafter their pension be calculated, accordingly. The said exercise shall be completed within four months from today and the revised pension along with arrears, if any, shall then be released within a period of four months to the petitioners.”

¶37

[emphasis supplied]

¶38

6] From the aforesaid, it is clear that the retirees pre 1996 and post 1996, in the facts and circumstances of the present case constitute one class. As between the members of this one class, it was impermissible for the State to adopt an unequal yardstick. Admittedly, the retirees post 1996 are being paid pension/family pension not only in the revised pay scale of Rs.12000-18300, but further such retirees, when they have put in five years of service in selection grade have their pay fixed at Rs.14,940/-. However, benefit of such interpretation is being denied to the college teachers who have retired prior to 1.1.1996. As noted earlier, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chandrakant Dangre (supra) has categorically held that this constitutes discrimination and is

¶39

¶40

wp-5466-06-G

¶41

accordingly unsustainable.

¶42

7] Accordingly, these petitions are liable to be allowed.

¶43

8] The respondents are directed to undertake the exercise of revising pension/family pension payable to the petitioners (college teachers) In accordance with remark appearing in Appendix-I to Government Resolution dated 11.12.1999 and if they satisfy the terms and conditions thereof to fix their pay at Rs.14,940/- and thereafter pay the pension/family pension accordingly alongwith arrears and all consequential benefits. This exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of four months from today.

¶44

9] The Petitioners have prayed for award of interest at the rate of 10% per annum upon the arrears. From the returns filed, it appears that there was a genuine dispute in matter of interpretation of the relevant provisions. As such, we are not inclined to accede to the prayer for interest from the date when such payments became due or for that matter from the date of filing of the petition. However, consequent upon the decision of this Court in the case of Chandrakant Dangre (supra ), nothing prevented the Respondents from themselves applying the principle laid down to the case of the

¶45

wp-5466-06-G

¶46

¶47

Petitioners. Accordingly, we direct interest at the rate of 8% per annum to be paid to the Petitioners (College Teachers) upon the arrears for the period between 01.12.2012 till date of effective payment.

¶48

10] Rule is accordingly made absolute to the aforesaid extent in

¶49

each of the petitions. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶50

(M.S. SONAK, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)

¶51

Dinesh

Shivaji University Teachers Association and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivaji University Teachers Association and Ors. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Taibai Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Balgi, through President, Rajkumar Baburao Hanchate and Anr. Vs Principal Secretary, School Education and Sports Division and Ors.

Shriram Education Society, Karganis, Shri Tanajirao Patil Education (B.Ed and M.Ed) College Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Rajendra Surendra Desai Vs Boyapati Gopal S/O. B. Achappa and Ors.

Shivaji University Teachers Association and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vinayak Arvind Aagawane Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Social Justice Dept and Ors.

Shivaji University Teachers Association and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.