: 1 : wp.10126.2010 vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10126 OF 2010 Bhor Ramesh Gorakhnath .. Petitioner V/s. Rayat Shikshan Sanstha, Satara & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Subhash Langote with V.A. Madane for the Petitioner Mr.Milind Deshmukh for the Respondent Nos.1, 3 & 4 Mrs.S.S. Bhende, AGP, for Resp. Nos.5 to 7 CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. ORDER RESERVED ON: OCTOBER 19, 2011 ORDER DELIVERED ON: NOVEMBER 9, 2011 P.C.: 1. By this petition, the petitioner has sought a declaration that the G.R. dated 31.7.2009 and the letter of approval dated 8.2.2009, restricting the payment of salary as per the prescribed scale from 23.6.2003 and not from an earlier date, are illegal. As a consequence, he has sought directions against the respondents to pay him (i) annual increments for the period from 1996 to 2001 as a part time teacher, (ii) salary for the period from 10.8.2002 to March 2009 and (iii) benefit of the senior scale on completion of 12 years of service i.e. w.e.f. August 2007. : 2 : wp.10126.2010 2. The Petitioner is qualified with the M.A. and B.Ed. Degrees. He was appointed to teach psychology as a part time teacher in respondent No.2 college on 21.8.1995. His services were approved as a part time teacher from year to year. He continued as such till he was appointed to Respondent No.3 college in the academic year 1998-1999 till 2001-2002 as a part time teacher. Thereafter the workload increased and therefore the post was converted to a full time teacher's post. The petitioner was appointed as a full time teacher in Psychology w.e.f. the academic year 2002-2003 in the Respondent No.4 college. The Respondent junior colleges are all run by the Respondent No.1 institution. According to the petitioner, his services were to be approved as a full time teacher from the academic year 2002-2003. However, respondent No.1 submitted the proposal for the approval for his appointment from the academic year 2003-2004, thereby depriving the petitioner of his rightful salary. 3. By G.R. dated 23.1.2006, the State Government has sanctioned 400 additional posts of teachers in junior colleges w.e.f. 2002-2003. The petitioner claims that he was not accorded the benefit of this G.R. because of the lapse on the part of Respondent No.1 in : 3 : wp.10126.2010 submitting the proposal for the approval of his appointment as a full time teacher w.e.f. the academic year 2002-2003. Consequently, the petitioner was not paid his salary in accordance with law for the period from 10.8.2002 to 31.3.2009, although he discharged his duties and responsibilities as a full time teacher in the junior colleges run by Respondent No.1. By the G.R. issued on 31.7.2009 the State sanctioned 20 posts for teachers in different junior colleges in the State with effect from the academic year 2003-2004. The petitioner's name was included in the list of teachers whose appointment was approved vide this G.R. The Deputy Director of Education intimated the petitioner as well as the respondents that the petitioner's appointment had been approved by letter dated 8.2.2010. 4. The main contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the G.R. dated 23.1.2006 under which 400 new posts for junior college teachers were sanctioned by the State. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the proposal for approving the petitioner's appointment had been submitted in 2002 itself by respondent No.1, the petitioner's appointment ought to have been approved from the academic year 2002-2003. : 4 : wp.10126.2010 5. An affidavit has been filed by the Assistant Director of Education, Kolhapur Region, Kolhapur contending that respondent No.4 Junior College did not submit the proposal for approving the petitioner's appointment from the academic year 2002-2003 and therefore, approval has been granted only from the academic year 2003-2004. It has been further stated in the affidavit that under the G.R. dated 31.7.2009 teachers who were appointed on newly created posts and whose proposals for approval for appointment were submitted to the State from the academic year 2003-2004 would be regularised only from that year. However, the teachers were not entitled to arrears of salary from 2003-2004 to 31.3.2009 and the benefit of regularisation was made available only for the payment of pension and pay fixation. 6. Respondent No.1 has also filed an affidavit contending that it had sent the proposal for approval of the petitioner's appointment in the year 2002 itself and, therefore, the State ought to have approved the petitioner's service from the academic year 2002-2003. 7. The Petitioner has annexed letters dated 28.3.2005 and 17.3.2006 to the petition. These letters have been sent to the Deputy : 5 : wp.10126.2010 Director of Education by the Respondent No.1-Institution, requesting that the petitioner's services be approved in accordance with their earlier letters including the letter dated 16/20.8.2002 seeking approval of his appointment for the academic year 2002-2003 onwards. The respondent institution has placed before us an intimation received by it from the Deputy Director of Education on 20.8.2002 indicating that its proposal for approving the petitioner's appointment could be considered only after the State sanctioned new posts for full time teachers. Therefore, there can be no doubt that the respondent institution had in fact submitted a proposal seeking approval of the petitioner's appointment from the academic year 2002-2003. The contention raised by the Assistant Director of Education that no such proposal was submitted is therefore, falsified by the record before us. The State had sanctioned 400 new posts of Junior college teachers by its G.R. dated 23.1.2006. Therefore it ought to have approved the appointment of the petitioner from the academic year 2002 -2003 in accordance with that G.R. 8. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the G.R. dated 31.7.2009 has no application in the present case. It is the G.R. dated 23.1.2006 which speaks of creation of 400 posts for the academic year : 6 : wp.10126.2010 2002-2003 which would be applicable to the petitioner. Obviously, therefore, the petitioner ought to have been granted approval from the year 2002-2003. 9. We, therefore, hold that the petitioner is entitled to the salary payable to the teachers in a Junior College from the academic year 2002-2003 onwards. All consequential benefits flowing therefrom shall be paid to the petitioner. The Institution shall submit the pay bills to the authorities within two weeks from today. The pay bills shall be cleared and the amount shall be paid by the State within four weeks thereafter to the petitioner. 10. Writ Petition is disposed in terms of the above directions. (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.) (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.)