Dismissed

Pravartak Suhas Pathak v. the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC10 Oct 2018PIL/58/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court addressed a PIL concerning inadequate infrastructure for the University and College Tribunal of Mumbai, adjudicating university disputes. The Court examined statutory provisions and a fresh Government Resolution providing amenities and staff to retired High Court Judges presiding over these Tribunals, finding no need for further directions as the issue was resolved.

What did the court decide?

The Government Resolution (G-1) was taken on record. No further directions were issued as the matter was held to be resolved by the fresh administrative action taken by the State.

Pravartak Suhas Pathak Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

SKN 1/6 40.17-pill.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (LDG.) NO. 40 OF 2017 Mr.Pravartak Suhas Pathak. … Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra and others. … Respondents.

¶4

None for the petitioner. Mr.A.L.Patki, Addl.GP for respondent No.1. Mr.Rui Rodrigues for respondent No.2.

¶5

CORAM : A.S.OKA AND M.S.SONAK, JJ. DATE : 10^th October 2018.

¶6

P.C.:

¶7

This PIL was essentially filed for bringing it to the notice of this Court that adequate infrastructure is not made available to the University and College Tribunal for the University of Mumbai (for short “the said Tribunal”), and even elementary facilities are not made available to the said Tribunal. It was also pointed out that the Presiding Officer of the said Tribunal who is a retired Judge of this Court has not been provided with amenities and facilities consistent with his status.

¶8

Perusal of the orders passed by this Court from time to time shows that there was in-depth consideration of the issue relating to making available facilities and amenities to the University and College Tribunal of Mumbai University. An officer of this Court was deputed to ascertain which kinds of facilities are available to the said Tribunal. The

¶9

SKN 2/6 40.17-pill.doc

¶10

reports of the officer are on record. However, we are not referring to the said reports as it appears from the record and from the submissions made across the bar that now all the necessary amenities and facilities have been provided to the University and College Tribunal of the University of Mumbai and to its Presiding Officer.

¶11

Section 80 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 (for short “the said Act of 2016”) provides for setting up one or more University and College Tribunals for more than one universities in the State of Maharashtra for adjudication of disputes between the employees of the universities and their respective universities as well as of the employees of affiliated or autonomous colleges or recognized institutions and their respective managements with regard to matters specified in subsection (1) of section 81 of the said Act of 2016. Perusal of sub-section (1) of section 81 shows that orders of dismissal or removal from service and action of otherwise termination of employment as well as action of reduction in rank of the employees of the universities as well as affiliated colleges and recognized institutions can be challenged by preferring appeal before the University and College Tribunal. The qualifications for the post of the Presiding Officer have been prescribed in sub-section (3) of section 80 of the said Act. Section 80 reads thus:

¶12

“ 80. University and College Tribunal:

¶13

(1) There shall be one or more university and college tribunals for one or more universities in the State, governed by this Act as well as the Maharashtra Agricultural Universities (Krishi Vidyapeeths) Act, 1983, the Maharashtra Animal and Fishery Sciences University Act, 1998 and the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act, 1998, for adjudication of disputes between the

¶14

SKN

¶15

3/6 40.17-pill.doc

¶16

employees of these universities and their respective university and between the employees of the affiliated or autonomous colleges or recognized institutions of these universities, other than those managed and maintained by the State Government, Central Government or local authority and their respective managements, with regard to the matters specified in sub-section (1) of section 81.

¶17

(2) The Tribunal shall consist of the Presiding Officer, to be appointed by the State Government.

¶18

(3) A person shall not be qualified to be appointed as a Presiding Officer of a Tribunal, unless,

¶19

(a) he is or has been a Judge of High Court; or

¶20

(b) is qualified to be appointed as a Judge of High Court: Provided that, a person to be appointed under clause (b) shall be from amongst the panel of three persons recommended by the Chief Justice of High Court of Judicature at Bombay.

¶21

(4) The appointment of a person as a Presiding Officer of the Tribunal shall be on a full time basis and for such period not exceeding three years in aggregate, as the State Government may, from time to time, in each case decide.

¶22

(5) The remuneration and other conditions of service of the Presiding Officer shall be as determined by the State Government.

¶23

(6) The university shall make available to the Tribunal such ministerial staff as may be necessary for the discharge of its functions under this Act.

¶24

(7) All expenditure on account of the remuneration, pension, provident fund contribution, leave allowance and other allowances and facilities which may be admissible to the Presiding Officer and the staff placed at his disposal shall be borne by the university or universities in such proportion as the State Government may by order specify.”

¶25

Sub-section (1) of section 80 contemplates that there shall be one or more University and College Tribunals for more than one universities in the State. Though under sub-section (5) of section 80, the power to

¶26

SKN 4/6 40.17-pill.doc

¶27

determine remuneration and other conditions of service of the Presiding Officers is conferred on the State Government, considering the fact that only a person who has been a Judge of a High Court or who is qualified to be appointed as Judge of a High Court can be appointed as Presiding Officer of the Tribunal, the State Government is under an obligation to fix the remuneration and other conditions of service consistent with the dignity of the office of the post of a Judge of the High Court.

¶28

We must note here that during the pendency of the petition, the State Government has taken requisite steps and has issued a Government Resolution dated 9^th October 2018 (for short “the said GR”). The said GR provides for creation of additional posts of staff in addition to the posts already created for the University and College Tribunal under the earlier Government Resolutions. The said two additional posts are of Assistant Registrar and Driver. Clause-2 of the said GR lays down the terms and conditions of service of the Presiding Officers. Clause-2 also lays down the facilities and amenities which will be provided to the Presiding Officers. After having perused clause-2 of the said GR, we find the conditions of service of the Presiding Officer set out therein are consistent with the status of the Presiding Officer. The State Government has taken a note of the fact that the Tribunals are presided over by retired Judges of this Court and, therefore, we find that what is prescribed in clause-2 of the said GR is consistent with the dignity of the office of the Judge of the High Court. The learned counsel appearing for the University of Mumbai has some reservations about sub-clause (6) of clause (2) of the said GR. Sub-clause (6) provides that the Presiding Officer will

¶29

SKN 5/6 40.17-pill.doc

¶30

be the head of the concerned Tribunal and the employee and staff working with the Tribunal shall work under his control. The learned counsel pointed out that the appointing authority and disciplinary authority of the staff of the University and College Tribunal is different and the Presiding Officer is neither an appointing authority nor a disciplinary authority.

¶31

Firstly, we must note here that sub-clause (6) of clause-2 of the said GR does not mean that the Presiding Officer becomes either the disciplinary authority or the appointing authority of the staff provided to the Tribunal. Sub-section (6) of section 80 mandates that the University shall make available to the Tribunal such ministerial staff as may be necessary for discharge of its functions under the said Act of 2016. As noted earlier, there could be one University and College Tribunal for more than one universities and, therefore, it is quite possible that the ministerial staff will be provided by more than one universities to one Tribunal as provided in sub-section (6) of section 80. Sub-section (6) makes it clear that such ministerial staff shall be provided to the Tribunal as may be necessary for discharge of the functions by the said Tribunal under the said Act of 2016. Only with a view to ensure that the Presiding Officer has effective control and supervision over the ministerial staff provided by the universities that sub-clause (6) of clause-2 of the said GR has been incorporated which ensures that the Presiding Officer becomes the head of the department for the ministerial staff and that the Presiding Officer has control over the said ministerial staff deputed by the universities. In view of what is stated above, we find that sub-clause (6) of clause-2 of the said GR needs no clarification.

¶32

SKN

¶33

6/6 40.17-pill.doc

¶34

We must note here that though the present PIL concerns only with the University and College Tribunal for the Mumbai University, the State Government has taken steps in a right direction by issuing the said GR as it is clear from the said GR that the same is applicable to all University and College Tribunals established in the State as per subsection (1) of section 80 of the said Act. Therefore, the said GR shall apply to all such Tribunals and the Presiding Officers of all the University and College Tribunals in the State.

¶35

The said GR is taken on record and marked as ‘G-1’ for identification. In view of the provisions of the said GR and what is observed above, it is not necessary to issue any further directions in this PIL as the said GR will have to be implemented by the State Government. Accordingly, subject to what is observed above, this PIL is disposed of.

Pravartak Suhas Pathak v. the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pravartak Suhas Pathak v. the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Vijay Maruti Satape Vs State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Water Supply and Ors.

Shri. Vijay Maruti Satape Vs State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Water Supply and Ors.

Aam Admi Party and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 20 Ors.

Maheshkumar Radhakishan Gujar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vithal Pandurang Barge Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Urban Development Dept. and Ors.

Mr. Irba Mashnaji Konapure vs State of Maharashtra through Govt. Pleader and Ors.

Vithal Pandurang Barge Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Urban Development Dept. and Ors.

Sanjay Bhaskar Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Anand Y. Pawar and 78 Ors. Vs the State of Maharastra and 4 Ors.

Vs

Vs

Bharati Shashikant Patil Vs Prabhavati Sitaram Mhatre and 11 Ors.

Anand Rathi Commodities Limited Vs Encore Natural Polymers Private Limited

M/S. Mantri Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary and Ors.