-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3576 OF 1996 WRIT PETITION NO. 3576 OF 1996 WRIT PETITION NO. 3576 OF 1996 Pradeep Ganpatdas Devi ) .. Petitioner. "Bhagyashree", Adwait Colony, ) Canada Corner, College Road, ) Nashik 422 005. ) V/s. 1. State of Maharashtra ) Education & Employment ) Department, Mantralaya, ) Bombay - 400 023. ) ) 2. Mahatma Gandhi Vidyalaya ) Mandir, Malegaon Camp, ) Dist.Nasik. ) ) 3. Loknete Vyankatrao Hiray ) Mahavidyalaya (LVH Mahavidyalaya)) Panchavati, Nashik 3. ) .. Respondents. --- Mr.M.P.Vashi for the Petitioner. Mr.R.D.Rane, Govt.Pleader for the Respondent No.1. Mr.Anilkumar K. Patil for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3. --- CORAM : F.I. REBELLO AND CORAM : F.I. REBELLO AND CORAM : F.I. REBELLO AND R.M. SAVANT, JJ. R.M. SAVANT, JJ. R.M. SAVANT, JJ. DATED : 14TH MARCH, 2007. DATED : 14TH MARCH, 2007. DATED : 14TH MARCH, 2007. JUDGMENT : JUDGMENT : JUDGMENT :- (Per R.M.SAVANT,J.) . This petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeks a direction against the Respondents to fix pay of the petitioner in the post of lecturer and also pay the arrears to the petitioner -: 2 :- on such pay fixation. 2. The factual matrix involved lies in a narrow compass and is stated thus : . The petitioner is a M.Sc. and was appointed on 16th November, 1976 as Lecturer in physics in the Mahatma Gandhi Vidya Mandir College of Arts, Science and Commerce. The appointment letter, interalia, states that the appointment is purely temporary and subject to the approval of the University/Education Department. The Petitioner was thereafter, again given a fresh appointment letter dated 03.07.1978. It is stated that the appointment of the petitioner was for the academic year 1978-79. It appears that the petitioner’s services came to be terminated on account of which the petitioner filed an appeal before the College Tribunal, having jurisdiction insofar as Pune and Shivaji Universities are concerned. The College Tribunal allowed the Appeal of the petitioner and directed the authorities to reinstate the petitioner. Consequent to the order of the College Tribunal, the Management vide its letter dated 03.03.1981 asked the petitioner to report for duties. The petitioner reported for duties on 10.03.1981. On such rejoining of duties, the petitioner was transferred to the Pharmacy College, run by the same -: 3 :- Management. While the petitioner was working as a lecturer in the Arts,Science and Commerce College, he was paid as per UGC scale applicable to the senior college for the academic year 1976-77 and 1977-78. However, the payment as per the UGC scales are pending from 1978-79 onwards. Vide letter dated 19.06.1978, an approval was also accorded to the petitioner’s appointment by the Pune University to which L.V.H. College, wherein the petitioner was working, was affiliated. The petitioner worked in the Pharmacy College between the period from 10.03.1981 and 14.08.1991. As the petitioner was not paid the arrears and also on account of the fact that the proper pay fixation was not done, the petitioner again approached the College Tribunal by way of an application numbered as 3 of 1987. The College Tribunal passed an order on 08.10.1987, directing the respondent to make payment as per the UGC scales to the petitioner and also directed the arrears amounting to Rs.58,916=89/- to be paid to the petitioner. It is an undisputed fact that insofar as the the payment of salary to the petitioner during the period 10.03.1981 to 14.08.1991 was concerned, the same was paid by the Management as the Pharmacy College was an unaided College. 3. It is unfortunate that, inspite of addressing -: 4 :- numerous letters, both by the petitioner as well as the management to the Administrative Officer, Higher Education, the petitioner’s pay fixation has not been done nor the arrears have been paid to the petitioner for the last more than 20 years. It is the case of the petitioner that on account of non-fixation of his pay, he is suffering a great financial loss since 1976. The petitioner, therefore, by filing the above petition, has claimed the said reliefs. It is the contention of the petitioner that at the time of filing of the above petition, his basic should have been Rs.16,620/- whereas it was only Rs.3200/-. It is further the case of the petitioner that the scale as per the Vth pay commission has also not been granted to the petitioner on the extraneous ground that the issue of regularization of his service and his entitlement to pay fixation is to be decided in the above petition. 4. On behalf of the respondents an affidavit has been filed by one R.B.Navasare, Administrative Officer in the office of the Joint Director, Higher Education, Pune Region, Pune. In the said affidavit, relying upon the Government Resolution dated NGC/1286/(1224) UNI-4, dated 27.02.1989, it has been submitted that since the petitioner does not have requisite qualification of having B+ rank in post graduation for appointment as a -: 5 :- lecturer, the petitioner’s pay has not been fixed. It is also contended that in view of the fact that the management chose to appoint the petitioner in breach of the said resolution, the responsibility of making payment etc., would be that of the management. 5. In the instant case, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner was appointed for the first time in the year 1976. The appointment of the petitioner was thereafter approved by the University on 14.02.1978. The judgment of the college tribunal, allowing the appeal of the petitioner was of the year 1979. Therefore, the said Government Resolution which came much later in point of time, in the year 1989, could not be made applicable to the petitioner’s case. 6. The petitioner has also produced documents which are in a compilation submitted at the time of hearing of the above petition. The said documents are in support of the fact that the petitioner’s appointment was approved and grants were released in respect of the petitioner’s appointment in the Arts, Science and Commerce College. Merely, because the petitioner was asked to work in the Pharmacy College against his wish would not deprive the petitioner of his right to fixation of pay and payment of arrears in respect of his -: 6 :- appointment as lecturer in the Art, Science and Commerce college. 7. As indicated herein above, the resolution of the State Government dated 27.2.1989 could not be made applicable to the case of the petitioner. In the said circumstances, the petition would have to be allowed and the following directions would have to be issued : i. The respondents are directed to fix the pay of the petitioner from the date of his appointment as lecturer in the senior college in the scales applicable as per the scales prescribed by various pay commissions. ii. Insofar as the period between 10.03.1981 to 14.08.1991 when the petitoiner was working in the Pharmacy College is concerned, the management i.e. the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein, would be liable to make the payment, if any, on account of difference between the pay scales applicable to the lecturer in the senior college vis-a-vis, the Pharmacy college. This includes the arrears also. iii. Insofar as the pension that would be -: 7 :- payable to the petitioner is concerned, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 would be liable to pay the difference on account of the difference in pay scales, if any, between the scales applicable to the lecturer in the senior college and the scales applicable to the Pharmacy college for the period 10.03.1981 to 14.08.1991 and deposit the said amount with the State Government. iv. The exercise in terms of clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) shall be carried out within a period of three months from today. 8. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. (F.I.REBELLO,J.) (R.M.SAVANT,J.) .....