K. Deshpande, Mr. Y. K. Bobade, Mr. R. D.Khadap, Mr. G. K. Kshirsagar, Mr v. Rakh
Facts
905-WP-14892-2023++.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 14892 OF 2023SUDHIR NARAYAN JADHAV VERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERSANDWRIT PETITION NO. 7344 OF 2022MACHINDRA TRIMBAK KHAKRE AND OTHERSVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERSANDWRIT PETITION NO. 7294 OF 2022SHIVAJI MAHADEO KHUDE AND OTHERSVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERSANDWRIT PETITION NO. 7188 OF 2022VIKAS VINAYAKRAO GAVTE AND OTHERS VERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERSANDWRIT PETITION NO. 7206 OF 2022WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.571 OF 2023PRAVIN NAVNATH KALUSE AND OTHERSVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS 1 of 9 (( 2 ))905-WP-14892-2023++ANDWRIT PETITION NO. 7197 OF 2022SUDARSHAN ABHIMANYU KALE AND OTHERSVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERSANDWRIT PETITION NO. 7267 OF 2022SACHIN SURYABHAN WARANGULE AND OTHERSVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERSANDWRIT PETITION NO. 7497 OF 2022AMOL BALASAHEB KALE AND OTHERS VERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERSANDWRIT PETITION NO. 7596 OF 2022NAVNATH GOVINDRAO RAKH AND OTHERS VERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERSANDWRIT PETITION NO. 7495 OF 2022HEMANT KARBHARI SHINGARE AND ANOTHERVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERSANDWRIT PETITION NO. 8445 OF 2022SANTOSH KALIDAS PARTAPURE AND OTHERSVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS 2 of 9 (( 3 ))905-WP-14892-2023++ANDWRIT PETITION NO. 9384 OF 2021AMOL GORAKSHANATH LAMBE AND OTHERSVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERSANDWRIT PETITION NO. 8763 OF 2022DEEPAK NARAYAN GAIKWAD AND OTHERSVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERSANDWRIT PETITION NO. 8779 OF 2022SHAIKH ABDUL AZEEM WAZIRODDIN AND OTHERSVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERSANDWRIT PETITION NO. 8781 OF 2022SUNIL RAGHUNATH PANHALEVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERSANDWRIT PETITION NO. 8833 OF 2022PADMANATH KONDIBA GARJE AND OTHERSVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERSANDWRIT PETITION NO. 10062 OF 2022SHARAD ANGADRAO ZENDEVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERSAND 3 of 9
Legal Reasoning
(( 6 ))905-WP-14892-2023++"equal pay for equal work". There is no dispute that all thesePetitioners are graduate trained teachers and all of them have beengranted the pay scale of the graduate teacher long ago, which hasbeen altered by the impugned order.4.It is undisputed that, prior to the introduction of theGovernment Resolution dated 13.10.2016, all the graduate trainedteachers have been granted the pay scale of the graduate trainedteacher. It is equally undisputed that, by Government Resolutiondated 11.08.1999, the State Government resolved to pay the salaryscale available to a graduate trained teacher. For brevity, if there are4 graduate trained teachers in the subject of Geology, the senior mostteacher would be eligible for the pay scale of a graduate trainedteacher, which would be 25% of the available strength of eligibleteachers. However, in several cases, every graduate trained teacherwas extended the said scale. By the Government Resolution dated13.10.2016, the proportion of 25% of the senior most graduateteacher in the subject being eligible for the pay scale commensurateto the position held, was altered and the new proportion of 1/3rd wasmade applicable. For brevity, if the subject Geography has 3 teachers,1/3rd meaning 33 1/3rd % of the teachers would be eligible for the 6 of 9 (( 7 ))905-WP-14892-2023++pay scale. If there are 6 teachers, 2 would get pay scale of thegraduate trained teachers. If there are 9 teachers in Geography, whoare graduate trained teachers, 3 senior most teachers would get thepay scale.5. The grievance of these Petitioners is that on the onehand, all the graduate trained teachers were earlier paid the pay scalecommensurate to the posts held by them. This position was notaltered until the Government Resolution dated 13.10.2016 wasintroduced. According to the Petitioners, they are further aggrievedby the impugned order, where proportion of 1/3rd teachers as per theseniority/subject-wise, was not followed and the proportion wasreduced to 25%.6.The learned Advocate representing the Zilla Parishad hasmade a valiant attempt to defend the impugned order. He issupported in his submissions by the learned AGP with equalvehemence. However, when confronted with Clause-3 of theGovernment Resolution dated 13.10.2016, they fairly submit that thesaid Government Resolution requires 33% of the senior most graduatetrained teachers to be considered for the pay scale, subject-wise, 7 of 9 (( 8 ))905-WP-14892-2023++going by their seniority. In view of the above, it is obvious that theimpugned order referring to the provision of 25%, instead of thereferable Clause-3 of the 2016 Government Resolution of 33 1/3rd%, is unsustainable.7.The learned AGP and the learned Advocate for the ZillaParishad, draw our attention to yet another Government Resolutiondated 27.06.2022. The Government of Maharashtra has formed acommittee. The terms of reference to the committee, are as under:-“2-vH;kl lferhph dk;Zd{kk iq<hyizek.ks jkfgy%&mPp izkFkfed Lrjkojhy 25% f’k{kdkauk inoh/kj osruJs.khns.;kekxhy ik’oZHkweh] lnj f’k{kdkaP;k ‘ks{kf.kd@O;kolkf;dvgZrse/;s dkyks?kkr >kysys cny] rRlaca/kkus lnj f’k{kdkauk ljldVinoh/kj osruJs.kh ns.;kph ekx.kh] R;keqGs iM.kkjk vkfFkZd Hkkj b-vuq”kafxd loZ eq|kapk loZad”k vH;kl d:u ‘kklukl f’kQkjl dj.ks-3-;k ‘kklu fu.kZ;kUo;s xBhr dj.;kr vkysY;k vH;kllferhus mijksDr uewn ckchaP;k vuq”kaxkus rhu efgU;kr vgoky‘kklukl lknj djkok-4-v/;{k] vH;kl lferh vko’;drsuqlkj lnj lferhoj‘kklfd;@v’kklfd; lnL;kauk vkeaf=r d: ‘kdrhy-”8.It is obvious that the above stated committee had tosubmit a report within three months from the date of it’s constitution.There is no dispute that the committee is in place. 8 of 9
Arguments
(( 4 ))905-WP-14892-2023++WRIT PETITION NO. 11803 OF 2022ABHIMANYU RANGNATH MATKAR AND OTHERSVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERSANDWRIT PETITION NO. 13633 OF 2019DEVENDRA NIVRUTTI BARGAJE AND OTHERSVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERSANDWRIT PETITION NO. 7490 OF 2022RAMKISAN DEORAO SANGALE AND OTHERSVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERSANDWRIT PETITION NO. 10948 OF 2023SACHIN RAGHUNATH ANDHALE AND OTHERSVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS .…Mr. A. N. Nagargoje, Mr. M. K. Deshpande, Mr. Y. K. Bobade, Mr. R. D.Khadap, Mr. G. K. Kshirsagar, Mr. A. V. Rakh, Mr. S. A. Ambad, Mr.T. M. Tandale, Advocates for Petitioners in respective PetitionsMr. P. K. Lakhotiya, AGP for Respondent – State Mr. P. D. Suryawanshi, Advocate for Zilla Parishad, BeedMr. V. S. Bedre, Advocate for Respondent No.3 in WP/9384/2021.…CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE ANDY. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.DATE:14.12.2023 4 of 9 (( 5 ))905-WP-14892-2023++PER COURT :- 1.In all these matters, the learned Advocates for thePetitioners submit that the impugned order deserves to be quashedand set aside, since it runs counter to Clause-3 of the GovernmentResolution dated 13.10.2016.2.In all these matters, the Petitioners claim to be identicallyplaced. They are aggrieved by the impugned orders one of thembeing dated 10.06.2022. The prayer clause (B) in Writ PetitionNo.14892 of 2022 is reproduced hereunder:-“(B)By issuing appropriate writ, orders or directions in thelike nature, the order dated 10.6.2022 Exhibit K passed by therespondent no.5 may please be quashed and set aside in theinterest of justice and restored the pay scale of graduateteacher to the petitioner by giving monetary benefits w.e.f.10.6.2022 in the interest of justice.”3.All the learned Advocates for the respective sides submitthat they have also challenged the said impugned order. Some ofthem have assailed the Government Resolution dated 13.10.2016.However, by a further Government Resolution issued on 27.06.2022,a committee has been formed to look into the grievances of theemployees like these Petitioners, who are insisting on theimplementation of the legal principle in service jurisprudence i.e. 5 of 9
Decision
(( 9 ))905-WP-14892-2023++9.In view of the above, these petitioners are partly allowedto the extent of these Petitioners. The impugned orders, are quashedand set aside. We expect the said Committee constituted under theGovernment Resolution dated 27.06.2022, to submit itsrecommendations to the Government, on or before 31.05.2024.10.The pending civil application, if any, does not survive andstands disposed off.11.The position existing prior to the issuance of theimpugned order, is restored. However, being conscious of the factthat a committee has been constituted by the Government Resolutiondated 27.06.2022, any further decision of the authorities would besubject to the recommendations of the committee, if accepted andimplemented by the State Government. [ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ] [ RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ]SMS 9 of 9