1 W.P. No.5682 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Writ Petition No.5682 Of 2009 1) Purbha s/o Rohidas Gore, Age 57 years, Occupation : Service. 2) Manik s/o. Vitthalrao Bharose, Age 52 years, Occupation : Service. 3) Bhaskar s/o. Raghvendra Joshi, Age 58 years, Occupation : Service. 4) Changoji s/o. Marotrao Khune, Age 58 years, Occupation : Service. 5) Sayed Allabax s/o Sayed Ameen Age 57 years, Occupation : Service. 6) Ashruba s/o Housaji Chavan, Age 50 years, Occupation : Service. 7) Nivruti s/o Tukaram Lokhande Age 57 years, Occupation : Service. 8) Uttam s/o Sundarrao Pawar, Age 53 years, Occupation : Service 9) Vasant s/o. Rangnathrao Parde, Age 55 years, Occupation : Service 10) Prakash s/o. Bhagwanrao Dhage, Age 53 years, Occupation : Service 2 W.P. No.5682 of 2009 11) Ramprasad s/o. Ganpatrao Jadhav, Age 58 years, Occupation : Service 12) Shankar s/o. Sitaram More, Age 59 years, Occupation : Service 13) Sayed Abdul Rashid, Age 58 years, Occupation : Service 14) Angad s/o. Pandurang Chate, Age 59 years, Occupation : Service 15) Maroti s/o. Pundlikrao Madlapure, Age 56 years, Occupation : Service 16) Devidas s/o. Piraji Telang, Age 55 years, Occupation : Service Petitioner Nos.1 to 14 residents of Parbhani, Taluka and District Parbhani. Petitoner Nos.15 and 16 residents of Udgir, Taluka Udgir, District Latur. .. Petitioners. Versus 1) The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Department of Agriculture and Animal Conservation, Dairy Development and Fishery, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2) The Registrar, The Maharashtra Animal And Fishery Science University Seminari Hills, Nagpur. 3 W.P. No.5682 of 2009 3) The Associate Dean, The Animal Husbandry and Animal Science College, Parbhani, Taluka and District Parbhani. 4) The Associate Dean, The Animal Husbandry and Animal Science College, Udgir, Taluka Udgir, District Latur. .. Respondents. -------- Shri. S.K. Chavan, Advocate for petitioners. Shri. V.B. Ghatge, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent No.1. Shri. P.G. Rodge, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 to 4. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & T.V. NALAWADE, JJ. DATE 15th NOVEMBER 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Naresh H Patil, J.): 1) Heard. 2) Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 3) The petitioners contend that they were appointed as Labourers in the year 1982-83 in Marathwada Agricultural University, Parbhani. They were 4 W.P. No.5682 of 2009 posted later on as Laboratory Attendants in the year 1989-90. A policy decision was taken under Government Resolution dated 21-9-1999 in respect of time bound promotion to Class III and Class IV employees of the Agricultural Universities on completion of 12 years continuous service. The State Government formed a separate University for Animal and Fishery Sciences at Nagpur. The petitioners contend that after newly created university, employees of all four Agricultural Universities were decided to be absorbed / transfered to the newly created University. The State passed an enactment namely Maharashtra Animal and Fishery Sciences University Act 1998. By Government Resolution dated 2-7-2001 the Government gave sanction to the transfer of the employees of these agricultural universities to the Maharashtra Animal and Fishery Sciences University, Nagpur (“MAFSU, Nagpur”). The petitioners chose to remain with the Marathwada Agricultural University Parbhani. But in spite of the same they were transfered to MAFSU Nagpur. 5 W.P. No.5682 of 2009 4) It is petitioners' contention that, they were compulsorily transfered to MAFSU Nagpur. They were holding same post and entitled for the same benefits as were getting earlier in the Marathwada Agricultural University, Parbhani. Respondent No.2 by order dated 24-7-2003 promoted the petitioners by giving pay scale of Rs.4000-100-6000 applicable to Laboratory Attendants considering applicability of the 5th Pay Commission. Since then the petitioners were getting the said pay scale. But to the surprise of the petitioners, the respondents issued the impugned order dated 8-7-2009 conveying them that the pay scale was wrongly awarded to them and the payment made would be recovered in installments from their salary. 5) In response to the notice issued, respondent No.1 and respondent Nos.2 to 4 have filed separate replies. The learned counsel for the University and the State submit that in view of the decision taken by the Government on a communication made by the University the decision to cancel the pay scale awarded to the petitioners was taken and consequently recovery of past 6 W.P. No.5682 of 2009 payment was also initiated. 6) We find from the documents placed on record that the petitioners were not heard by the University or the State Government before the impugned order was passed. 7) In the facts of the case we find that the petitioners are entitled to file comprehensive representation / application to the State Government in respect of the issue involved herein. 8) Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the following judgments. (1) Bhagwan Shukla v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 2480. (2) State of Maharashtra v. Uttam Pawar, (2008) 2 SCC 646. (3) Union of India v. Jangam Anant Amrutling, 2006(5) Mh.L.J 463. (4) Canara Bank v. Debasis Das, AIR 2003 SC 2041. We have perused the judgments cited supra. 9) After considering the replies filed by the respondents and the submissions advanced we are of the 7 W.P. No.5682 of 2009 view that the matter needs to be remanded back to the State Government for fresh consideration. 10) The impugned order dated 8-7-2009 is quashed and set aside. The petitioners to file comprehensive representation addressed to the Secretary, Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, within four weeks from today. In case the petitioners file such representation we direct the respondent No.1 to decide the said representation after hearing the petitioners or their authorized representative, representative of the University within three months from the date of receipt of the representation. The respondent No.1 shall pass a brief reasoned order on the representation and communicate the decision to the petitioners and the University. Till decision is taken the respondents shall not recover the salary paid to the petitioners on the basis of the said pay scale. All issues are kept open. Rule made absolute in the above terms. Sd/- Sd/- (T.V. NALAWADE, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl