Allowed

Yashwant Shantaram More and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC8 Aug 2018WP/9151/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order granted the petition, addressing salary disparity where junior teachers with Ph.D. degrees received higher pay than senior teachers. Citing a Government Resolution and a prior judgment, the court held that seniors promoted before 2006 should be paid at the same rate as juniors promoted after 2006 if both meet specific conditions to fix the anomaly.

What did the court decide?

Rule made absolute; arrears to be paid to petitioners expeditiously within three months from today.

Yashwant Shantaram More and Others Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

927 WRIT PETITION NO. 9151 OF 2018

¶3

YASHWANT SHANTARAM MORE AND OTHERS

¶4

VERSUS

¶5

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶6

...

¶7

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr.Pisal Pramod A.
AGP for Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr. A.V.Deshmukh

¶8

...

¶9

CORAM: S.V.GANGAPURWALA

¶10

AND

¶11

SUNIL K.KOTWAL, JJ.

¶12

 DATE : AUGUST 8, 2018

¶13

O R D E R:

¶14

Heard.

¶15

2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the

¶16

consent of parties taken up for final hearing.

¶17

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners states
that respondent No. 4 is a formal party and seeks leave
to delete respondent No. 4. Leave granted.

¶18

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader accepts
notice for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

¶19

5. Mr. Pisal, learned counsel submits that junior

¶20

to the petitioners is being paid more salary than the

¶21

petitioners only on the count that junior to the
petitioners has completed his Ph.D. after enforcement
of 6th Pay Commission. Learned counsel submits that
the petitioners have completed their Ph.D. in 1998
and a senior cannot be paid salary less than his
junior. Learned counsel also relies on the
Government Resolution, dated 12.08.2009, more
particularly Note 6 to Appendix I and also on the
judgment of this Court dated 18.10.2016 in Writ
Petition No. 10271 of 2016, so also judgments in
similar Writ Petitions.

¶22

6. Learned Additional Government Pleader on
going through the judgment in Writ Petition No. 10271
of 2016 affirms the fact that the petitioner would be

¶23

covered by the said judgment.

¶24

7. Note 6 to Appendix I of Government

¶25

Resolution dated 12.08.2009 reads as under:

¶26

“ Appendix I

¶27

............. .........

¶28

Note 6 – In case where a senior teacher
promoted to a higher post before the 1st

¶29

wp9151.18

¶30

¶31

day of January, 2006 draws less pay in
the revised pay structure than his junior
who is promoted to the higher post on or
after the 1st day of January, 2006, the
pay in the pay band of such senior
teacher should be stepped up to an amount
equal to the pay in pay band as fixed for
his junior in that higher post. The
stepping up should be done with effect
from the date of promotion of the junior
teacher subject to the fulfillment of the
following conditions.

¶32

(i) both the junior and the senior
teacher should belong to the same cadre
and the posts in which they have been
promoted should be identical in the same
cadre.

¶33

(ii) the prerevised scale of pay and
revised Pay Band and Academic Grade Pay
of the lower and higher posts in which
they are entitled to draw pay should be
identical.

¶34

(iii) the senior teacher at the time of
promotion should have been drawing equal
or more pay than the junior.

¶35

(iv) the anomaly should be directly as a
result of the application of the

¶36

4 wp9151.18

¶37

provision of these rules or any other
rules or order regulating pay fixation on
such promotion in the revised pay
structure.

¶38

........... ........... "

¶39

8. This Court in its order dated 18.10.2016 in

¶40

Writ Petition No. 10271 of 2016 has also held that
the discrimination cannot be made only on the ground
that the junior teacher has acquired Ph. D. degree
after implementation of 6th Pay Commission.

¶41

9. Considering the above, Rule is made absolute
in terms of prayer clause 'A'. The arrears be paid to
the petitioners expeditiously and preferably within a

¶42

period of three (03) months from today. No costs.

¶43

dbm

Yashwant Shantaram More and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yashwant Shantaram More 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

Sharad Vitthal Bhange Vs Zilla Parishad Aurangabad through Its Chief Executive Officer and Another

Shashikant Ramrao Patil and Others Vs the Secretary Tribal Social Welfare Department Mumbai and Another

Chandrakant Eknath Bansode and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Gajanan Nagorao Rajure Vs the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded and Others

Jayashree Jagannath Kulkarni Vs Aurangabad Municipal Corporation through Its Municipal Commissioner and Others

Ramesh Maroti Adhagale and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others