1 wp177.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.177 OF 2011 KJ Sachin Shankar Divkar )..Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. )..Respondents W I T H WRIT PETITION NO.460 OF 2011 Madhukar Dadu Sonawane )..Petitioner Vs The Accounts Officer, Audit Squad (Education ) Department Pune & Ors. )..Respondents W I T H WRIT PETITION NO.3038 OF 2011 Mrs.Priyanka Prashant Tambe )..Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. )..Respondents W I T H WRIT PETITION NO.3039 OF 2011 Anil Rohidas Pawar )..Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. )..Respondents W I T H 2 wp177.11.sxw WRIT PETITION NO.6587 OF 2010 Ramesh Dnyaneshwar Thorat & Ors. )..Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. )..Respondents W I T H WRIT PETITION NO.9091 OF 2010 Ramdas Baburao Khairnar )..Petitioner Vs. The Director of Education, Secondary & ) Higher Secondary & Ors. )..Respondents. W I T H WRIT PETITION NO.9234 OF 2010 Arvind Panditrao Dighe )..Petitioner Vs. The Director of Education, Secondary & ) Higher Secondary & Ors. )..Respondents W I T H WRIT PETITION NO.9235 OF 2010 Pratibha Pramod Parnekar )..Petitioner Vs. The Director of Education, Secondary & ) Higher Secondary & Ors. )..Respondents W I T H WRIT PETITION NO.9236 OF 2010 3 wp177.11.sxw Neha Sunil Oak )..Petitioner Vs. The Director of Education, Secondary & ) Higher Secondary & Ors. )..Respondents W I T H WRIT PETITION NO.9283 OF 2010 Sneha Prashant Parvate )..Petitioner Vs. The Director of Education, Secondary & ) Higher Secondary & Ors. )..Respondents W I T H WRIT PETITION NO.9284 OF 2010 Babu Eknath Muradnar )..Petitioner Vs. The Director of Education, Secondary & ) Higher Secondary & Ors. )..Respondents ---- Mr.B.S.Nayak for the petitioners in WP Nos.177/11, 3038/11 & 3039.2011. Mr.S.S.Pakale i/by Kiran Kumar Phakade for the petitioners in WP Nos.9091/10, 9234/10, 9235/10, 9236/10, 9283/10, 9284/10 and 460 of 2011. Mr.C.R.Sonawane AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3 in WP Nos. 177/11, respondent nos.1 to 4 in WP No.6587/10 & for respondent nos.2 & 5 in WP Nos.9091/10, 9234/10, 9235/10, 9236/10, 9283/2010 & 9284/2010. ---- 4 wp177.11.sxw CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ DATE : 28/4/2011. PC 1 Heard Counsel for the parties. 2 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Mr. Sonawane AGP waives service for the official respondents in the respective matters. 3 As short question is involved, petitions are taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent. 4 The petitioner(s) in the respective petition is a graduate in degree in Librarian Science. Indeed the petitioner(s) were appointed as Librarians in the respective schools on different dates after 27th December, 1979. Relying on the Government Resolution dated 1.10.1988, the petitioners assert that they are entitled for revised pay scale provided therein. That relief, however, has been denied to them on the ground that they were appointed after 27th December, 1979. 5 wp177.11.sxw 5 To answer the grievance made by the petitioners, we would straight-way advert to the condition specified in the Government Resolution dated 1.10.1988 which has become part of Maharashtra Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules 1988. The same reads thus :- Sr. No. Designation Existing scale of pay and Special pay, if any. Revised scale of pay and Special pay, if any. 375 ek/;fed 'kkGsrhy f'k{kdsrj deZpkjh@ Non-Teaching Staff in Secondary Schools xzaFkiky inoh/kj o xzaFk'kkL=krhy inoh vFkok infodk o 27@12@79 iwohZph fu;qDrh@ Librarian (Graduate with Diploma or degree in Library Science and appointed before 27 December 1979) (emphasis supplied) 365-760 1400.2300 6 In the first place, the controversy arises because of the incorrect english transaction done in the official document. In our opinion, the correct translation ought to be “Graduate with degree in Library Science” or “Diploma holder and appointed before 27th December, 1979” 6 wp177.11.sxw 7 Notably, the interpretation of the above clause came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Avinash Shivaji Gaikwad Vs. The Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Solapur and Ors in Writ petition No.4424 of 2003. The Division Bench observed as follows :- “The requirement of appointment prior to 27th December, 1979 is applicable only in respect of librarians who do not possess a Bachelor’s degree in library science but, possess only a diploma. The word `or’ in the pay-scale is used disjunctively.” 8 We are in agreement with the view so taken. Applying the said interpretation to the fact situation of the present cases, we have no hesitation in taking the view that the petitioner(s) before this Court are entitled for relief of revised pay scale, being graduates in Library Science. The fact that the petitioner(s) have been appointed after 27.12.1979 would make no difference. 9 As a matter of fact the petitioner(s) initially relied on the decision of another Division Bench in the case of Shobhu Shankar 7 wp177.11.sxw Chavan Vs. Head Master, Maharashtra Vidyalaya, Dist. Solapur in Writ Petition No.5938 of 1998. That decision however, makes reference to Government Resolution dated 1.10.1998. Some confusion arose on account of the said date referred to in the decision. It is however, now, not in dispute that the decision in Writ Petition No.5938 of 1998 has attained finality as the Appeal preferred by the State of Maharashtra against the said decision has been rejected by the Supreme Court. Further, according to the petitioner(s), the date referred to in the said decision of Government Resolution, as 1.10.1998, is a clerical error. That date ought to be read as 1.10.1988. There is force in this submission, as the same is supported by the Government Resolutions on record. In any case, having considered the norms specified in the Rules of 1988, there is hardly any doubt that the person who has been appointed as Librarian possessing qualification of Graduate in Bachelor of Librarian Science is entitled to get revised pay scale as specified therein irrespective of his date of appointment. 8 wp177.11.sxw 10 In view of the above, these petitions succeed. The respondents are directed to grant revised pay scale to each of the the petitioner(s) in accordance with Rules of 1988 with consequential benefits if any. That be done forthwith. In any case, not later than eight weeks from today. 11 Rule made absolute in each of these petitions on the above terms with no order as to costs. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)