Allowed

Venkat Janardhanappa Vilegave and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC22 Dec 2016WP/10148/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad disposed of a PIL by senior doctors, relying on an earlier judgment from 2013 which addressed pay discrimination under the 6th Pay Commission. The court held that giving lie to the experience and pay of senior teachers and ruled that the petitioners were directed to refix pay of the petitioners and arrears be paid within a period of three mon

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; respondents directed to refix pay of petitioners and pay arrears within three months.

Venkat Janardhanappa Vilegave and Others Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO. 10148 OF 2016

¶3

1. Dr. Venkat s/o Janardhanappa Vilegave, Age : 56 years, Occu. Service, R/o Shri Guru Budhiswami College, Purna, Tq. Purna, Dist. Parbhani

¶4

2. Dr. Baswaraj s/o Maruti Biradar, Age : 55 years, Occu. Service, R/o Shri Guru Budhiswami College, Purna, Tq. Purna, Dist. Parbhani

¶5

3. Dr. Purushottam s/o Pralhad Sharma, Age : 58 years, Occu. Service, R/o Science College, Nanded, Tq. and District Nanded

¶6

4. Dr. Pradeep s/o Rajaram Wesanekar, Age : 55 years, Occu. Service, R/o Science College, Nanded, Tq. and District Nanded

¶7

5. Dr. Dattatraya s/o Dnyandeo Pawar, Age : 55 years, Occu. Service, R/o Science College, Nanded, Tq. and District Nanded

¶8

6. Dr. Maloji s/o Khandojirao Fugare, Age : 61 years, Occu. Service, R/o Science College, Nanded, Tq. and District Nanded

¶9

7. Dr. Nandeshwar s/o Mukhalan Sontakke, Age : 60 years, Occu. Service, R/o Science College, Nanded, Tq. and District Nanded

¶10

8. Dr. Ashok s/o Hullaji Shrirame, Age : 57 years, Occu. Service, R/o D.S.M.S. Arts, Commerce and

¶11

¶12

wp10148-2016

¶13

Science College, Parbhani,
Tq. and District Parbhani PETITIONERS

¶14

VERSUS

¶15

1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32

¶16

2. The Director, Higher Education, Maharashtra State, Central Building, Pune

¶17

3. The Joint Director, Higher Education Nanded Division, Nanded

¶18

4. The Secretary, University Grants Commission, Bahadur Shah Jafar Marg, New Delhi – 110 002

¶19

5. The Registrar, Swami Ramanand Teerth Marathwada University, Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nandd

¶20

6. The Principal, Science College, Nanded, Tq. & District Nanded

¶21

8. The Principal, D.S.M.S. Arts, Commerce and Science College, Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani RESPONDENTS ----

¶22

Mr. H.V. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioners Mr. A.S.Shinde, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 Mr. Alok Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 4 ----

¶23

¶24

wp10148-2016

¶25

CORAM :R.M. BORDE AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.

¶26

DATE : 22nd December, 2016

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : R.M. BORDE, J.) :

¶28

Heard.

¶29

2.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With

¶30

the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for
final hearing and disposal at the stage of admission.

¶31

3.The facts giving rise to the instant petition
are identical to the facts of the matter decided by
Division Bench of this Court on 21st November, 2013 i.e.
Writ Petition No. 10283 of 2012 and other companion
matters. In paragraph No. 15 of the Judgment, the
Division Bench has observed thus:

¶32

“ 15. In the present matter, according to us, the incentives while implementing 6^th Pay Commission for Ph.D. cannot be so given so as to give a junior teacher more pay than the senior who is otherwise equally qualified. Rather he has more experience and is senior even in the acquisition of the Ph.D. Degree. All things given to the same at a given point

¶33

wp10148-2016

¶34

¶35

of time, junior teacher could not be getting more salary than the senior only because the junior has just acquired the Ph.D. Degree. The Constitution has goal under Article 39(d) that there should be equal pay for equal work. If the arguments as raised on behalf of the Respondents are accepted, the same would amount to discriminating to teachers only on the basis of junior teacher having acquired Ph.D. Degree recently under new Pay Commission. This would be violative of the principles as enunciated in Article 16 of the Constitution and such position cannot be allowed to be maintained. It is different when one person is having higher qualifications. However, it would be discriminatory when both are having similar qualifications and a person not only senior in service but also equally qualified is so discriminated, so as to be put in disadvantageous position as it was a fault to have acquired Ph.D. Degree earlier. It is not a case of keeping the incentive separate and not part of pay. If pay fixation of petitioner No.1 (as at page 60-61 in Paper Book) is seen, on 1^st July, 2008, his basic pay is shown as Rs.57,260/- while that of Shri S.S.

¶36

5 wp10148-2016

¶37

Nighut (See Page 107) was Rs.55,870/-. Then in the proforma of Pay Fixation, entry on 22^nd September, 2008 for Shri S.S. Nighut shows his basic pay as “55870+5030 = 60,900”. Thus the increments were merged in the basic. This would be discriminative between Senior Teacher and Junior Teacher. Note 5 below Appendix I of the G.R. needs to be applied that such discrimination is removed.”

¶38

4.The factual details of the matter prompting the
petitioners to approach this Court need not be stated.
This petition can be disposed of in view of the reasons

¶39

set out in the Judgment cited supra, decided by this
Court on 21-11-2013.

¶40

5.For the reasons recorded above, the instant

¶41

petition needs to be allowed and the same is accordingly
allowed. Respondents shall take necessary steps to step-

¶42

up pay of the petitioners so as to bring it on par with
their juniors and there shall be no discrimination only

¶43

on account of the fact that the junior teacher has
acquired Ph.D. Degree after implementation of 6th Pay
Commission.

¶44

¶45

wp10148-2016

¶46

6.Writ Petition is allowed. Respondents are

¶47

directed to refix pay of the petitioners and arrears be
paid within a period of three months.

¶48

7.Rule is accordingly made absolute. There shall

¶49

be no order as to costs.

¶50

npj/wp10148-2016

Venkat Janardhanappa Vilegave and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venkat Janardhanappa Vilegave and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Vikas Govindrao Bodamwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Prabhu Dattatraya Totewad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Nanda Namdev Tidake and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ramdas Sakharam Thorat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Divyani Vijay Nikumbhe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Prakash Popat Koli Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another