AJN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.548 OF 2005 Devyani L. Patel & Ors. ... Petitioners Vs. College of Pharmacy, Shivajinagar & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Mihir Desai for the petitioners. Mr. K.Y. Mandlik for respondent 1. Ms. M.P. Thakur, A.G.P. for the State. CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : FEBRUARY 07, 2008. P.C.:- 1. The petitioners are employed with respondent 1 for the last 15 to 16 years. Respondent 1 is a college of pharmacy affiliated to University of Pune. It is fully aided by the State Government. Respondent 2 is the management which runs respondent 1- college. In short, the grievance of the petitioners is that though the petitioners are fully qualified and were selected by selection procedure laid down by the University and they have worked AJN 2 without any break for about 15 to 16 years, they have been denied senior scale/selection grade. According to the petitioners, they fulfilled all necessary requirements as per G.R. dated 11/2/1994 for the senior scale/selection grade. The petitioners have, therefore, prayed that the respondents be directed to extend the petitioners senior scale/selection grade as per the dates mentioned in Ex-A to the petition and with further direction to pay difference of wages and arrears from the respective dates of their appointments. 2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for respondent 1 and learned A.G.P. appearing for the State. 3. Affidavit in Reply is filed by Pramod A. Naik, Joint Director, Technical Education, Regional Office, Nashik. Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the said affidavit read as under : “3. I say that there are three Petitioners in this petition Smt. Devyani L. Patel, Shri Sanjay Pramod Anantwar, Shri Ashok P. Pingle. I say that the above mentioned Petitioners have been working in the college of Pharmacy, Nashik which is the Government aided institution. AJN 3 4. I say that pursuant to the office order dated 25th September, 2006 of Directorate of Technical Education, Maharashtra State letter No.4/Astha/SLNL/2006/1676 dated 25.9.2006, the Petitioner have been granted senior scale and selection grade, considering their original date of appointment as mentioned in the `Exhibit-A' of the petition. Hereto annexed and marked as “Exhibit- 1” is a copy of the letter dated 25th September, 2006. 5. I further say that as far as Shri Sanjay Pramod Anantwar, Shri Ashok P. Pingle is concerned there has been certain discrepancy at the time of calculating the date of implementation of selection grade. I say that their matter is taken into consideration in the meeting held by Directorate of Technical Education which was conducted on 10th January, 2008. I say that so far as their discrepancy is concerned it shall be cleared while granting senior scale and selection grade.” 4. It is clear from the above that the petitioners have been granted senior scale/selection grade after considering their original date of appointment as mentioned in Ex-A to the petition. Paragraph 5 indicates that there were certain discrepancies at the time of calculating the date of implementation to the selection grade. It is stated that the discrepancies shall be cleared while granting senior scale/selection grade. In view of this, in our opinion, the petitioners' grievance is completely redressed. AJN 4 5. Mr. Desai, learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners were required to undergo refresher course. The petitioners did not do the refresher course during the time when they were treated as temporary employees. However, they did the course subsequently. Mr. Desai states that therefore, the respondents are likely to give them senior scale/selection grade from the date on which they completed the refresher course. Mr. Desai states that as per the circulars issued by the University Grants Commission, senior scale/selection grade is granted by taking into account services from the date of initial appointment. So far as this grievance is concerned, the petitioners may approach respondent 4 and, if such a representation is made, respondent 4 shall consider it in accordance with law. The petition is disposed of. [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [A.A. SAYED, J.]