Allowed

Arun Trimbakrao Tawar and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC24 Aug 2016WP/6774/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed writ petitions filed by retired and serving college teachers seeking revised salary and pension to be at par with junior professors. The court directed the State and educational institutions to remove discrimination based on qualifications and pay arrears within six months.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to step up pay/pension to match junior associate professors, re-fix salaries, and pay arrears within six months.

Arun Trimbakrao Tawar and Others Vs the State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1 WP-4831.16

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 4831 OF 2016

¶4

Sangappa Sidramppa Dhumare Age: 61, occu: Service, R/o Ramkrishna Paramhansa Mahavidyalaya Osmanabad, Dist. Osmanabad.

¶5

Shantinath Abasaheb Ghodke, Age: 53, occu: Service, R/o Ramkrishna Paramhansa Mahavidyalaya Osmanabad, Dist. Osmanabad.

¶6

Devidas S/o Yeshwant Ingle, Age: 55, occu: Service, R/o Ramkrishna Paramhansa Mahavidyalaya Osmanabad, Dist. Osmanabad.

¶7

Chanrakant S/o Eknath Mahadik, Age: 53, occu: Service, R/o Ramkrishna Paramhansa Mahavidyalaya Osmanabad, Dist. Osmanabad.

¶8

Smt. Shama W/o Chandrakant Mahadik, Age: 54, occu: Service, R/o Ramkrishna Paramhansa Mahavidyalaya Osmanabad, Dist. Osmanabad.

¶9

Sultan S/o Babasaheb Shetsandi, Age: 54, occu: Service, R/o Tuljabhawani Mahavidyalaya, Tuljapur Tq.: Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad.

¶10

Tukaram S/o Limbaji Barbole, Age: 56, occu: Service, R/o Tuljabhawani Mahavidyalaya, Tuljapur Tq.: Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad. ...PETITIONERS versus

¶11

The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Higher & Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai -32

¶12

The Director, Higher Education, Maharashtra State, Pune.

¶13

2 WP-4831.16

¶14

3.	The Joint Director, Department of Higher Education, Aurangabad.
4.	Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Aurangabad Through its Registrar,
5.	Shri Swami Vevekanand Shikshan Sanstha, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur, Tq. & Dist: Kolhapur, Through its Secretary
6.	Ramkrishna Paramhans Mahavidyalaya Osmanabad, Dist. Osmanabad through its Principal.
7.	Tuljabhawani Mahavidyalaya, Tuljapur, Dist: Osmanabad Through its Principal ...RESPONDENTS
Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Res	..... Ajay Shinde, Advocate for petitioners S.G. Karlekar, AGP for respondents 1 to 3 S. S. Tope , Advocate for respondent No. 4 Ghute Patil, Advocate for respondent No. 5 & 6 pondent No. 7 served.

¶15

	WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6774 OF 2016 WITH CIVIL APPLICATIOKN NO. 11079 OF 2016 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6774 OF 2016
1.	Dr. Arun s/o Trimbakrao Tawar, Age: 55 years, Occu: Service,
2.	Dr. Shaikh Md. s/o Babar Ab. Razak, Age: 55 years, Occu: Service,
3.	Dr. Ravindra s/o Balkrishnarao Muley, Age: 51 years, Occu: Service,
4.	Dr. Prashant s/o Shridhar Wakte, Age: 49 years, Occu: Service,
5.	Dr. Ashok s/o Namdeorao Jondhale, Age: 59 years, Occu: Service,

¶16

3 WP-4831.16

¶17

6.	Dr. Deepak s/o Gangadhar Palaskar, Age: 60 years, Occu: Service,
7.	Dr. Prakash s/o Bhaskarrao Khanale, Age: 51 years, Occu: Service,
8.	Dr. Ramkrishna s/o Sadashiv Kamble, Age: 60 years, Occu: Retired.
9.	Dr. Sharad s/o Digambarrao Biradar, Age: 59 years, Occu: Service,
10.	Dr. Sunil s/o Vishwanathrao Shinde, Age: 56 years, Occu: Service,
11.	Dr. Basavraj S/o Manikrao Kareppa, Age: 54 years, Occu: Service,
12.	Dr. Mrs. Sumangala w/o Babarao Tathe, Age: 58 years, Occu: Service,
13.	Dr. Prabhakar s/o Keshavrao Joshi, Age: 64 years, Occu: Retired, All R/o Dnyanopasak Shikshan Mandal's College of Arts, Commerce, and Science, Parbhani, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani. ...PETITIONERS
	versus
1.	The State of Maharashtra , Through its Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai -32
2.	The Director, ti Higher Education, Maharashtra State, Pune.
3.	The Joint Director, Higher Education, Nanded Region, Nanded.
4.	The Principal, Dnyanopasak Shikshan Mandal's College of Arts, Commerce and Science, Parbhani, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani ...RESPONDENTS

¶18

4 WP-4831.16

¶19

Mr. K. M. Suryawanshi, Advocate for petitioners Mr. S.S. Dande, AGP for respondents No. 1 to 3 Respondent No. 4 served absent.

¶20

CORAM : R.M. BORDE AND K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.

¶21

DATED : 24^th AUGUST, 2016.

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : R.M. Borde, J.)

¶23

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with consent of the parties, the petitions are taken up for final hearing at admission stage.

¶24

The petitioners are requesting for issuance of directions to the respondents for stepping up their pay so as to bring it at part with the Junior Associate Professor with effect from the date of revision of pay/salary as per Government Resolution dated 12-08-2009.

¶25

The facts giving rise to the instant petition need not be stated in detail since those are undisputed. Even otherwise, the facts are identical as in the case of Dr. Sudhakar Murlidhar Lawande and others Vs. State of Maharashtra (Writ petition No. 11129 of 2015) and in the case of Sudamrao Keshavrao Aher and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (Writ Petition No.10283 of 2012) decided on 21^st November, 2013 [2014(1) ALL M.R., 697].

¶26

For the reasons recorded while disposing of the aforesaid matter presented by Sudamrao Aher and others, the instant writ petitions also deserve to be allowed and the same are accordingly allowed.

¶27

5 WP-4831.16

¶28

The respondents shall take necessary action to step up the pay/pension of the petitioners so as to bring it at par with juniors where all the parameters are same and shall not discriminate only because the junior teachers have acquired Ph.D degree/ M.Phil qualification as the case may be and are getting higher salary/ pension during implementation of 6^th Pay Commission's recommendations. The salaries of the petitioners may be refixed and arrears be paid within a period of six months

¶29

Writ petitions are allowed in above terms. Rule is made absolute accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶30

Pending civil application does not survive and stands disposed of.

¶31

Sd/Sd/-

¶32

[K. K. SONAWANE, J.] [R.M. BORDE, J.]

Arun Trimbakrao Tawar and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Trimbakrao Tawar 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

Shakeel Ahmed Sk. Jamil Ahmed Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Saif Ul Islam Abdul Hameed and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sachidanand Ashok Shejwal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

The Bodawad Sarwajanik Co. Operative Education Society through Its Chairman Motilal O Agrawal and or Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Amit Babasaheb Golhar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shiva Trusts Bharatratna Dr Apj Abdul Kalam College of Architecture Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others