IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 1216 OF 1991 PETITION NO. 1216 OF 1991 PETITION NO. 1216 OF 1991 Bankerai Ambikarai Sharma ... ... Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... ... Respondents Mr. C.U. Singh, Senior Counsel with Mr. Avinash Fatangale for petitioner. Mr. I.K. Calcuttawala, AGP for Respondent no. 1. Mr. Rui Rodrigues with Mr. B.V. Phadnis for Respondent No.2. Mr. Birendra Saraf with Mr. B. Das i/b M/s Gagrat & Co. for Respondent No. 3. CORAM CORAM CORAM : BILAL NAZKI & S.A. BOBDE, JJ. : BILAL NAZKI & S.A. BOBDE, JJ. : BILAL NAZKI & S.A. BOBDE, JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 5TH FEBRUARY, 2008 : 5TH FEBRUARY, 2008 : 5TH FEBRUARY, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. : : :- . This petition is pending for the last 17 years and though the matter is in a very short compass, it has taken a long time to reach to final conclusion. 2) In nutshell, the Petitioner was working in two different Colleges and under two different managements and was being paid by both the Managements part-time salary as a Teacher. His case was that under the University Statute and certain Government Circulars, he was entitled to one full time pay scale as full time teacher. During the pendency of this Writ Petition, the 2 Petitioner retired from the service and a question arose whether he was entitled to pension or not. 3) The Division Bench after hearing the matter, felt the need to refer the question relating to entitlement of pension to a Full Bench. The Full Bench held that the Petitioner is not entitled to pension, but it also addressed the question of entitlement of petitioner to one full time salary and in para No. 18 of the Judgment of the Full Bench it is held as under : "What has been done by the Circular issued by the University of Bombay on 31st March, 1970, inter alia, is that in the case of a person who works as a part-time teacher in two colleges conducted by different Managing Bodies or Society, such person is held to be entitled to the total emoluments of full- time teacher in a college by taking together the total emoluments of that person in the two colleges. In other words, the total emoluments of the part time teacher in the two colleges taken together shall be total emoluments of full-time teacher in a college. The Government Resolution dated 1st June, 1981, inter alia, provides for workload of full-time college teachers and part-time college teachers and it notices that regular pay-scale for part-time teachers has been prescribed which is equivalent to half the pay-scale applicable to full-time teachers. The Government Resolution dated 21st July, 1983 extends Pension-cum-Gratuity Scheme to the teaching and non-teaching staff of 3 the non Agricultural Universities and the affiliated non-Government colleges. For the purpose of this Scheme, an employee means a full-time Professor, Reader, Lecturer, Demonstrator, Tutor, Method Master, Registrar, Deputy Registrar, Superintendent, Head Clerk, Senior Clerk, Junior Clerk, Peons, etc. The Petitioner was a part-time lecturer in two colleges conducted by two different Managements. Part-time lecturer in two colleges can not be said to be covered by the scheme and from the definition of employee provided therein, it does not seem that part-time teacher was intended to be covered. Merely because the part-time teacher working in two colleges is entitled to the emoluments of full-time teacher by virtue of the Circular issued by the University of Mumbai on 31st March, 1970, in our view, such part-time teacher cannot be held to be full-time lecturer for the purpose of the Government Resolution dated 21st July, 1983. We have already noticed above that in the petitioner’s own case it has been specifically held by the Division Bench that the petitioner was not entitled to the post of full-time lecturer. We are unable to hold that the petitioner is covered by the Government Resolution dated 21st July, 1983." 4) The learned counsel appearing for the University has no objection to claim of Petitioner as there is already a Circular issued by the University entitling the Petitioner for one full time salary in lieu of two part time salaries. This question was also considered by the full bench in the judgment referred to above. However, the learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the Petitioner may be entitled to 4 one full time salary in lieu of two part time salary, but he would not be entitled to any other emoluments such as H.R.A. etc. He would only be entitled to the basic pay. 5) The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has however drawn our attention to the two circulars dated 31st March 1970 and also another circular bearing No. 513/89 issued by the University. These circulars were also considered by the Full Bench in the same paragraph. Reference was made to these circulars and it was held that a person who was having two part time engagements was entitled to total emoluments of a person who was a full time teacher. Therefore, this argument cannot be accepted that a person who is entitled to a full time salary would only be entitled to the basic-pay and not emoluments which are attached to the salary. It is more so, because the services as full-time teacher or a part-time teacher is counted as one full time service. 6) Therefore, we allow the Writ Petition and hold that the Petitioner was entitled to one full-time salary for the period for which he 5 worked as part-time teacher in two colleges. 7) The salary shall be fixed as per the Circulars referred to above. It is pointed out that during the service period, there were revisions of pay. They shall be given effect to from the relevant dates. 8) With these directions, the Writ Petition is allowed. The order shall be implemented within a period of three months. ( BILAL BILAL BILAL NAZKI, J.) NAZKI, J.) NAZKI, J.) ( S.A. BOBDE, J.) S.A. BOBDE, J.) S.A. BOBDE, J.)