Allowed

Rajendra Balwant Pathak v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC21 Aug 2019WP/1956/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged salary disparity where the petitioner, a senior teacher with a Ph.D. obtained in 2002, was paid less than a junior teacher promoted post-2006. The court relied on a prior judgment and a Government Resolution to direct payment of arrears.

What did the court decide?

Arrears to be paid to the petitioner expeditiously within three months from the date of order.

Rajendra Balwant Pathak Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

(1)

¶2

67-wp-1956-2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 67 WRIT PETITION NO.1956 OF 2018

¶4

RAJENDRA BALWANT PATHAK ..PETITIONER

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS..RESPONDENTS

¶7

Mr. Pramod A. Pisal, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. S. B. Yawalkar, AGP for Respondents-State.
Mr. Mahesh S. Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent
No.4.

¶8

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &

¶9

 MANGESH S. PATIL, JJ.

¶10

 DATED : 21st AUGUST, 2019.

¶11

PER COURT:-

¶12

1.Heard.

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

4.Mr. Pisal, learned counsel submits that
junior to the petitioner is being paid more salary
than the petitioner only on the count that junior
to the petitioner has completed his Ph. D. after
enforcement of 6th Pay Commission. Learned counsel
submits that the petitioner has completed his Ph.
D. in 2002 and a senior cannot be paid salary less

¶16

(2) 67-wp-1956-2018

¶17

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.

¶18

5.Learned Additional Govt. Pleader on going
through the judgment in Writ Petition No. 10271 of
2016 affirms the fact that the petitioner would be
covered by the said judgment.

¶19

6. Note 6 to Appendix I of Government Resolution
dated 12.08.2009 reads as under:

¶20

“ Appendix I

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

(3)

¶24

67-wp-1956-2018

¶25

promotion of the junior teacher
subject to the fulfillment of the
following conditions.

¶26

(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.

¶27

(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.

¶28

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

¶29

(iv) the anomaly should be
directly as a result of the
application of the provision of
these rules or any other rules or
order regulating pay fixation on
such promotion in the revised pay
structure.

¶30

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

¶31

(4) 67-wp-1956-2018

¶32

7.This Court in its order dated 18.10.2016
in 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.

¶33

8.Considering the above, Rule is made
absolute in terms of prayer clause 'A'. The arrears
be paid to the petitioner expeditiously and
preferably within a period of three (03) months
from today. No costs.

¶34

Devendra/August-19

Rajendra Balwant Pathak v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Balwant Pathak 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

Amalner Municipal Council Amalner through Councilor Kumar Ramkrushina Bapurao Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sakharam Raghunathrao Kulkarni Vs H D B Financial Services and Others

Arvind Amarchand Mishra and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Jitendra Swarupchand Chajed and Others Vs the Secretary the Maharashtra State Co. Operative Election Authority Pune and Others

Sunil Hanumantrao Rakade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Avinash Mukundrao Bhalerao and Another Vs Jitendra Swarupchand Chajed and Others