Ahalya A. Samtaney vs The State Of Maharashtra

2. The appellant obtained a Post Graduate degree (M.A.) and thereafter completed her Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.). She was appointed as a tutor of English in the H.R. College of Commerce and Economics, Mumbai (respondent No.6), in which position she carried on her professional duties from 15.12.1974 to 31.7.75 in the grade pay-scale of Rs.250-15-400. The then existing pattern of education was of 10 years schooling and 4 years of college. The appointment of the appellant was approved by the University of Mumbai (respondent No.4) on 15.5.1975. 1

3. The appellant continued to work as a tutor in English till 31.7.1975, when she was promoted as a Lecturer of English in the Senior College w.e.f. 1.8.1975. The appellant continued to work in that capacity up to 30.9.1976 in the revised grade pay-scale of Rs.700-50-1600.

4. A new pattern of education was introduced from June, 1976 under the pattern of 10+2+3, as a consequence of which the appellant was rendered fully surplus in the senior college. The Government of Maharashtra (respondent No.1) conscious of such consequences, laid down certain guidelines for absorption of the lecturers rendered surplus due to the new 10+2+3 pattern vide the Government Resolution No. HSC.1076/419-XX-XXI dated 11th June 1976. It is in view of these guidelines that the appellant was appointed as a full time teacher in English now in the junior college w.e.f. 1.10.1976, in the pay-scale of Rs.500-900 instead of Rs.700-50-1600.

7. The other developments which took place were that by the order dated 19.6.1978, the Principal of the College appointed her as a full time Lecturer in the Junior College and thereafter allowing her to contribute to the Provident Fund. The College informed the Joint Director of Higher Education that they were desirous of absorbing the appellant in the Degree College w.e.f. 1.1.1994 and to fix her pay in the scale of Rs.2200- 4000 from 1.12.1993. This absorption was approved by the University by the order dated 31.1.1994. There were certain other communications also exchanged in the same direction.

8. The appellant sought regularisation of her pay-scale, a grievance, which was not redressed, which resulted in her filing writ petition No.1840/1998, before the Bombay High Court. The gravamen of the 3 case of the appellant in the High Court was that the appellant was squarely covered by a Government Resolution dated 11.6.1976, which dealt with cases like those of the appellant being rendered surplus. Since the appellant was appointed as a full time teacher of English in Junior College w.e.f. 1.10.1976, the appellant claimed protection of her pay.

10. The case of the appellant is based on her being in service on or before 7.2.1975, as she was working with the college as a tutor from 15.12.1974 and that she continued her service up to the academic year 1975-76 in the college, but could not complete two years of continuous service by then, on account of the new pattern of education. There was a 4 simultaneous declaration of the appellant as surplus on 29.9.1976, with her appointment as a full time teacher in the Junior College w.e.f. 1.10.1976. In terms of the Government resolutions, the appellant claimed pay-scale of Rs.700-1600. She claimed placement in this pay- scale from 1.8.1975 in view of the pay-scale existing for Senior Lecturer and Lecturer (junior scale), which were revised. She, thus, also claimed entitlement to all consequential arrears on account of re-fixation of pay. The defence of the respondents is based on the alleged non-continuous service on account of her termination on 30.9.1976 with her re- appointment in the junior college w.e.f. 1.10.1976. Thus, it was claimed that the appellant is not covered by clause (iii) having worked as a tutor till 31.7.1975 and being appointed as a Lecturer in the senior college only w.e.f. 1.8.1975.

11. The reasoning advanced on behalf of the respondents found favour with the High Court, which dismissed the writ petition by the order dated 24.7.2017. What weighed with the High Court was the fact that the initial appointment of the appellant was as a tutor of English in the senior college and the appointment was approved by the University as such. Thus, she was working as a tutor on or before 7.2.1975 and the case of 5 college ‘tutors’ was to be considered in accordance with clauses (iv) &

The teachers belonging to P-1 category were recognized (teachers) and were in service before 7.2.1975. Therefore as per the Government policy they were absorbed in pay scale of Rs.700- 1200. The teacher in P-1 category included tutor demonstrator, Method Masters and they were in service on 7.2.1975. However as per the rules of University they were not having teacher’s qualification.

The Government therefore resolved that subject to the conditions mentioned hereafter the teachers who have been 1   To be read as ‘be’.

22. We are also of the view that this issue has been receiving attention and has been agitated before different authorities and the alleged delay in filing the writ petition cannot stand in the way of the appellant getting the benefit for services. The relevant pay-scale will entitle her to the emoluments which were admissible to her for work already performed.

23. We, thus, unhesitatingly conclude that the appellant is entitled to be treated in the pay-scale of Rs.700-1600 and is entitled to all the benefits of the Resolution dated 27.11.1991.

24. We, thus, direct the respondents to calculate the emoluments due to 14 the appellant in the aforesaid terms within a period of three months from today and remit the same to her within the same period of time. In the peculiar facts, we are not granting any past interest in this case, but in case of any delay beyond three months, interest would be admissible on the amounts due and payable to the appellant @ 12 per cent per annum, simple interest.

25. The appeal is accordingly allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

August 16, 2018.