1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2669 OF 2009 Digambar Narharrao Jagdale, Age: 63 years, Occ: Pensioner, R/o. At Post Sawangi (Harsool), Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Technical and Higher Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032. 2. The Registrar, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad. 3. The Deputy Director of HIgher Education, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2672 OF 2009 Prakash Khanderao Tapi, Age: 59 years, Occ: Pensioner, R/o. Nehal Bar Apartment, Mill Corner, Flat NO.1, Kotwalpura, Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER 2 VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Technical and Higher Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032. 2. The Registrar, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4113 oF 2009 Ramdin Dattatraya Baliram, Age: 59 years, Occ: Pensioner, R/o. Plot No.34, Ranjanvan Housing Society, N-9, CIDCO, Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Technical and Higher Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032. 2. The Registrar, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS ... Smt. A.N. Ansari, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri. V.B. Ghadge, A.G.P. for respondent State. Shri. S.K. Kadam, Advocate for respondent University. ... 3 CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 10TH AUGUST, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER NARESH H. PATIL, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. The petitioners are retired from their services. The petitioners contended that they were working as Supervisors and Oversears at the relevant time. The petitioners' basic claim for which the petitions have been filed is, to issue directions to the respondents to grant status and pay scale as Junior Engineer Class-III employees as per Government Resolution No.16-04-1984. 3. Initially, the State Government filed reply through the Joint Director, Higher Education, Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad, on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 3. The deponent therein contended in Para-5 as under : 4 "5. In respect of Para No.4 to 6 I say and sub mit that as per the procedure the University forwarded the application submitted by the petitioner to the office of respondent No.3. However, I say and submit that granting pay scales to the employees of the State is a subject matter of policy of the Government. I say and submit that mere forwarding / recommending any application by the authorities of the University does not mean that the demand of the petitioner is legal and justifiable as contended by the petitioner. The Govt. Resolution dated 16.4.1984 issued by the Irrigation Department is applicable to the Public Works Department / Irrigation Department only and same is not applicable to the employees of the Higher and Technical Education Department. The functioning and nature of work of the employees of both the Department are altogether 5 different and therefore it is illogical to state that the said Government Resolution applicable to the Irrigation Department / Public Works Department be made applicable to the employees of the Higher and Technical Education Department. I further say and submit that laying down any policy for implementation which involves huge financial implications is based on economic arrangement and top priorities of the State and therefore the contention of the petitioner for application of Government Resolution dated 16.4.1984 on the same footing to Department of Higher and Technical Education is not proper and justifiable." 4. Thereafter, the petitioner filed rejoinder, wherein in Para-2 and 3, the petitioner contended as under : "2. I say and submits that the 6 benefits of Government Resolution dated 16.4.1984 was initially made Applicable to Shivaji University and thereafter to all other Universities. I say and submits that Government vide Government Resolution dated 30.9.1995 has made the Government Resolution dated 16.4.1984 applicable to all the Electrical Engineers working in Agriculture universities. For the ready reference copy of Government Resolution 30.9.1995 is annexed herewith and marked at Exhibit "R-1". 3. I say and submits that the Government by its letter dated 2.12.1997 has stated that as the Government Resolution of Higher & Technical Education has been made Applicable to the Junior Engineer ( Electrical Engineer ) working in Shivaji University vide Government Resolution 30.9.1995 now the same is made applicable to all other 7 remaining universities and the junior Engineer and equivalent post will be given the benefit of Government Resolution. The copy of letter 2.12.1997 is annexed herewith and marked at Exhibit "R-2"." 5. Thereafter, respondent No.3 filed affidavit in reply through Joint Director of Higher Education, Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad. Para-3 of the same reply is required to be reproduced as under : "3. I say and submit that as per the notification issued by the State of Maharashtra (Higher and Technical Education Department) dated 4th Feb. 1999 while implementing Revised Pay the post of "Junior Engineer" is shown in the pay scale of unrevised Rs.2000-3200 revised Rs.6500-10500 and the post of Electrical Oversear is shown in the pay scale of unrevised Rs. 8 1400-2300 Revised Rs.4500-7000. From the above fact it is clear that the post of Junior Engineer and post of Oversear are not equivalent or similar posts. The Government of Maharashtra has not notified the post of the Oversear equivalent or similar to the post of Junior Engineer. Therefore the claim of the petitioner based on the Government Resolution dated 16.4.1984, 30.9.1995 and Govt. letter dated 2.12.1997 is inconsistent and not in accordance with the spirit of Law also". 6. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the relief in identical nature was granted in respect of the employees of Shivaji University and reference has been made to Government Resolution dated 30-09-1995 and a communication dated 02-12-1997, made by Under Secretary to Director of Education, Higher Education, Maharashtra State, Pune. Both these 9 orders are passed with the consent of Finance Department, according to the Counsel. The learned Counsel therefore submits that though University recommended the case of the petitioners, the petitioners are deprived of the status of Junior Engineer Class-III and consequential benefits. The learned Counsel for the petitioners also placed on record Government Resolution dated 23-02-1973 and copies of the order dated 10-07-1990 and 21-11-1979 passed by the Rural Development Department of State Government, in support of her submission. 7. The learned A.G.P. submits that equivalence for the purpose of grant of pay scale and consequential benefits granted by particular Department cannot be made applicable to all Departments including University employees. The petitioners are not entitled to take benefits of such a stand adopted by the Irrigation Department in respect of treating the posts of Oversears equal to the post of Junior Engineer, for the 10 purpose of pay scale and other consequential benefits. The learned A.G.P. placed reliance on affidavit in reply filed in support of his contention. 8. The learned Counsel for the University that the University recommended the cases of the petitioners, though the petitioners are retired from their services. The learned Counsel submits that the issue is required to be looked into afresh. 9. We have considered the submissions advanced, perused the relevant documents placed on record, affidavit in reply and Government Resolutions. 10. We gather from material placed on record that for the purpose of pay scale and consequential benefits, the petitioners wanted them to be treated equal to Junior Engineer though they discharged their duties as Oversears while 11 working with the University. There is substance in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the employees of Shivaji University were given benefit of policy of the State whereas employees of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University were deprived of. We do not find any strong and good reasonable basis in treating employees of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University differently by the State Government. In case, the State had adopted policy for the purpose of grant of benefit of pay scale and other consequential service benefits in respect of employees of P.W.D. and made it applicable to other Universities, it was reasonable and proper for the State Government not to deviate from its stand while applying the same principle to the employees of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University. 11. The stand adopted by the State before this Court is unreasonable. The issue, therefore, requires to be looked into afresh, in the light of 12 observations made by us and material placed before this Court. The issue cannot be kept pending for a long time in view of the fact that the petitioners are already retired from their services. The issue needs to be minutely considered in view of the fact that the University had also recommended the case of the petitioners. 12. For the reasons stated above, we direct respondent No.1 Technical and Higher Education Department, to consider the prayer made by the petitioners herein and take a final decision and communicate the same to Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, within three months from the date of receipt of this order. The State Government is expected to communicate the order with brief reasoning. The University, in turn, shall communicate the decision to the petitioners. In case, the State Government desires any further information from the University, we direct the University to co-operate with the State Government promptly. 13 13. Rule made absolute, in the above terms. . The learned A.G.P. to forward copy of this order to Principal Secretary, Technical and Higher Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. . Authenticated copy be given to the learned A.G.P. [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] sut/AUG10/wp2669.09