Allowed

Sayed Rauf Sayed Yusuf Quadri and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC27 Jul 2018WP/513/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Division Bench held that retirement benefits were maintainable despite delay because the state authority erroneously fixed lower pay scales in 2012, compelling the petitioners to approach the court.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; petitioners ordered entitled to pay band Rs.1200-2040 since 1986 and Rs.4500-7000 since 1996 to be released within six months.

Sayed Rauf Sayed Yusuf Quadri and Others Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

1018 WRIT PETITION NO. 513 OF 2018

¶3

SAYED RAUF SAYED YUSUF QUARI AND OTHERS
VERSUS

¶4

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AD OTHERS

¶5

...

¶6

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Kudale Bhagwan S. and

¶7

Mr. A.R. Tapse

¶8

AGP for Respondent No. 1: Mr.P.S. Patil

¶9

Advocate for Respondent Nos 2 & 3 : Mr. Panpatte V.S.
Advocate for Respondent No 2 : Mr. S.S. Bora
Advocate for Respondent No 3 : Mr. S.P. Chate

¶10

...

¶11

CORAM: S.V.GANGAPURWALA
AND
SUNIL K.KOTWAL, JJ.

¶12

 DATE : JULY 27, 2018

¶13

O R D E R:

¶14

The petitioners assail the order, dated
7.4.2012, so also seeks directions to the respondents

¶15

to grant pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040 since 1986 and pay
scale of Rs.4500-7000 since 1996 onwards.

¶16

2.The petitioners are retired teachers serving
with respondent no. 2 and 3. The petitioners are
appointed prior to 1972 and they possess qualification

¶17

of SSC and HSC. The said qualification as per

¶18

Government Resolution dated 4.10.1983 was deemed to
be the qualification for trained teacher in the year

¶19

1991. The Chief Executive Officer issued order

¶20

declaring the petitioners as trained teachers. On or
about 7.4.2012, the Chief Executive Officer declared

¶21

the pay scale to the deemed trained teachers
including the petitioners in the pay scale of
Rs.1200-1800 for the year 1986 and Rs.4,000-6000 for
1996 onwards.

¶22

3.The learned counsel for petitioners submits

¶23

that the pay scale has been erroneously fixed and
same ought to be Rs. 1200-2040 since 1986 and pay

¶24

scale of Rs.4500-7000 since 1996 onwards. The

¶25

learned counsel relies on various judgments and the
orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition no.
10418 of 2014, dated 14.1.2015, so also in Writ
Petition bearing Nos. 1311 of 1997 with Writ Petition
No. 9798 of 2012 with connecting Writ Petitions,

¶26

¶27

wp513.18

¶28

dated 13.2.2014.

¶29

4.Mr. Patil, learned counsel submits that this

¶30

court may not entertain the Writ Petition. The
petitioners have approached this court after 35
years. Because of the delay the present Writ Petition
is not maintainable. The law helps diligent. The
learned counsel relies on the following judgments of
the Apex Court.

¶31

1) Union of India and others vs
M.K.Sarkar, reported 2010 (2) SCC 59

¶32

2)State of Uttaranchal and another vs
Sri Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari and
others, reported in 2013 (12) SCC 179

¶33

3)C.Jacob vs Director of Geology and
Mining Indus. Est. And Another, reported
in 2008 (10) SCC 115

¶34

4)Jagdishlal vs State of Haryana,
reported in 1997 (6) SCC 538

¶35

5.Learned counsel submits that the delay
disentitles the party discretionary relief under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶36

4 wp513.18

¶37

6.We have considered the submissions canvassed

¶38

by learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶39

7.The petitioners are agitating violation of
their right to get pay scale in proper pay band.
Fixation of proper scale is the responsibility and
duty of respondent nos. 2 and 3. Respondents cannot
take advantage of their own wrong. On one hand, they
fix wrong pay scale of the petitioners and thereafter
agitate that the case of the petitioners should not
be entertained on the ground of delay. Respondent
nos. 2 and 3 are not expected to indulge in an
adversarial litigation. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have
to keep in mind that they are the Local Authority and
the instrumentality of the State. They are expected
to be model litigants.

¶40

8.The contention of the respondents that

¶41

petitioners have approached this court after long gap
of 35 years is on the face of it erroneous. The pay

¶42

5 wp513.18

¶43

fixation was done by the Education Officer in the

¶44

year 2012. In the year 2012 wrong pay fixation was
done by the Education Officer, which compelled the
petitioners to approach this court. The said pay
fixation was absolutely against the decision given by
this court in various Writ Petitions reported
(supra).

¶45

9.As the decision was taken for the first time
in the year 2012 the petitioners got cause to agitate
the same before this court. The petitioners are
seeking enforcement of their right which has been
denied by the respondents - instrumentality of the
State.

¶46

10.There cannot be any dispute in proposition
that in normal parlance in an adversarial litigation
the delay would dis-entitle a party from claiming
relief. In the present case authority erroneously
fixed pay scale for its own employees in the year

¶47

2012. The pay fixation was wrongly done which was
squarely against the judgments of this court referred
supra.

¶48

11.The issue that the petitioners would be
entitled for the pay scale on par with those persons
who are appointed prior to 1972 and hold SSC
qualification are entitled for pay band of Rs. 1200-
2040 since 1986 and pay band of Rs. 4500-7000 since
the year 1996 is not in dispute.

¶49

12.The issue is no longer res-integra in view
of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court
in Writ Petition No. 1311 of 1997 with connected Writ
Petitions dated 13.2.2014. For the reasons recorded
in the said judgment, we pass the following order.

¶50

(a)The impugned order is quashed and set aside.

¶51

(b)The petitioners if are appointed prior to

¶52

7 wp513.18

¶53

1972 and were holding SSC qualification then those
petitioners are entitled for the pay band of Rs.1200-
2040 since 1986 and pay band of Rs.4500-7000 since
1996. The Respondents on satisfying themselves about
the said fact and if they find the petitioners
eligible, shall release the said benefits to the
petitioners expeditiously and preferably within six

¶54

(6) months.

¶55

(c)The writ petition is accordingly disposed
of. No costs.

¶56

mahajansb/

Sayed Rauf Sayed Yusuf Quadri and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sayed Rauf Sayed Yusuf Quadri 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ganpatrao Eknathrao Narwade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Harvindersingh Basantsingh Bindra Vs Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1 Aurangabad and Another

Mangalabai Bhausaheb Pathade and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sojar Gangaram Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dadarao Vitthalrao Warne and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Raghunath Patilba Shelke Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others