(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 3571 OF 1994 1. Marathwada Shikshak Sangh, through its General Secretary at Ghatnandur, Taluka : Ambajogai, District : Beed. 2. Mallikarjun s/o. Shivappa Modi, Age : 61 years, Occupation : Pensioner (Awardee Teacher), Secretary, Action Committee of Awardee Teachers in aided Schools of the Marathwada Region under Marathwada Shikshak Sangh, r/o. Ghatnandur, Taluka : Ambajogai, District : Beed. .. Petitioners. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Bombay. 2. The Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. .. Respondents. ....................... (2) Mr. S.R. Barlinge, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. K.G. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 and 2. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 22ND JUNE 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioners are seeking a direction to the respondents, to extend the benefit of special pay to the awardee teachers who were appointed on or before 31st March 1966. 2. Mr. S.R. Barlinge, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the Government Resolution dated 18th April 1991, which describes 1st November 1959, as a cut off date, is patently arbitrary and discriminatory. (3) 3. By the Government Resolution dated 18th April 1991, the State has provided that such of the Teachers, who were appointed prior to 1st November 1959 and who were possessing the requisite qualification, are entitled to be treated as awardee Teachers and for the pay scale thereof. We find that the basis for the said cut off date appears to be on the re- organization of the States. The cases, which are covered by the said Government Resolution, are of the teachers prior to re- organization who were working in the erstwhile Hyderabad State and, as such, in order to protect their services, the impugned Government Resolution dated 18th April 1991 has been issued. 4. In the matter of determination of cut off date, the onus is on the person who challenges its arbitrariness to establish that the said cut off date has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved. No material is placed on record to substantiate the said contention. On the contrary, as already observed by us above, we find that the cut off date appears to be on account of re-organization of the States and for protecting services of the teachers in the erstwhile Hyderabad State. 5. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The petition is, (4) therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp3571