Vaishali Kashinathrao Akusakar And Others v. The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others

2024:BHC-AUG:21704-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 944 WRIT PETITION NO. 9893 OF 2024 VAISHALI KASHINATHRAO AKUSAKAR AND OTHERS

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE SECRETARY AND OTHERS ...

Mr. S. B. Solanke h/for Mr. Sahebrao A. Nagarsoge, Advocate for the Petitioners Mr. S. K. Tambe, AGP for the Respondents/State Mr. P. D. Suryawanshi, Advocate for Respondent Nos.5 and 6

CORAM

: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.

DATE : 10th September, 2024 ORDER:

1.

The Petitioners claim to be identically placed. They are aggrieved by the impugned orders, one of them being dated 10.06.2022. Prayer clause (B) is reproduced hereunder:- "B] By issuing appropriate writ, orders or directions in the like nature the order dated 10.06.2022 (Exhibit K) passed by the respondent no.5 may please be quashed and set aside and it may please be held that, the petitioners are entitled to draw the primary graduate pay scale in the interest of justice. 2.

The learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits that they have challenged the impugned order, as well as 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 the employees like these Petitioners, who are

insisting on the implementation of the legal principle in service jurisprudence i.e. "equal pay for equal work". There is no dispute that all these Petitioners are graduate trained teachers and all of them have been granted the pay scale of the graduate teacher, long ago, which has been altered by the impugned order.

3.

It is undisputed that, prior to the introduction of the Government Resolution dated 13.10.2016, all the graduate trained teachers have been granted the pay scale of the graduate trained teacher. It is equally undisputed that, by Government Resolution dated 11.08.1999, the State Government resolved to pay the salary scale available to a graduate trained teacher. For brevity, if there are 4 graduate trained teachers in the subject of Geology, the senior most teacher would be eligible for the pay scale of a graduate trained teacher, which would be 25% of the available strength of eligible teachers. However, in several cases, every graduate trained teacher was extended the said scale. By the Government Resolution dated 13.10.

2016, the proportion of 25% of the senior most graduate teacher in the subject being eligible for the pay scale commensurate to the position held, was altered and the new proportion of 1/3rd was made applicable. For brevity, if the subject Geography has 3 teachers, 1/3rd meaning 33 1/3rd % of the teachers would be eligible for the pay scale. If there are 6 teachers, 2 would get pay scale of the graduate trained teachers.

there are 9 teachers in Geography, who are graduate trained teachers, 3 senior most teachers would get the pay scale. 4.

The grievance of these Petitioners is that, all the graduate trained teachers were earlier paid the pay scale commensurate to the posts held by them. This position was not altered until the Government Resolution dated 13.10.2016, was introduced. According to the Petitioners, they are further aggrieved by the impugned order, wherein the proportion of 1/3rd teachers as per the seniority/subject-wise, was not followed and the proportion was reduced to 25%. 5.

The learned Advocate representing the Zilla Parishad has made a valiant attempt to defend the impugned order. He is supported in his submissions by the learned AGP with equal vehemence. However, when confronted with Clause-3 of the Government Resolution dated 13.10.2016, they fairly submit that the said Government Resolution requires 33% of the senior most graduate trained teachers to be considered for the pay scale, subject-wise, going by their seniority. In view of the above, it is obvious that the impugned order referring to the provision of 25%, instead of the referable Clause-3 of the 2016 Government Resolution of 33 1/3rd %, is unsustainable. 6.

The learned AGP and the learned Advocate for the Zilla Parishad, draw our attention to yet another Government Resolution

dated 27.06.2022. The Government of Maharashtra has formed a committee. The terms of reference to the committee, are as under:- "२. अभ्यास समि तीची कायक्ቌा iw<hyizek.ks रामिल:- उ्ሴ izkFkfed स्तरावरील २५% शि्ቌकांना पदवीधर osruJs.kh देण्या ागील पाኚᮛभू ी, सदर शि्ቌकांच्या े्ቌशि&क / व्यावसायियक अते ध्ये कालोघात झालेले बदल, तत्संबंधाने सदर शि्ቌकांना ljldV पदवीधर osruJs.kh देण्याची ाग&ी, त्या ुळे पड&ारा आቕኌ4क भार ड. अनुषंमिगक सव ु्ቕांचा सव7कष अभ्यास करून ासनास शिफारस कर&े.

३. या ासन मिन&यान्वये गठीत करण्यात आलेल्या अभ्या समि तीने उपरो्ሹ न ूद बाबींच्या अनुषंगाने तीन मिन्यात अवाल ासनास सादर करावा.

४. अध्य्ቌ, अभ्यास समि ती आवश्यकतेनुसार सदर समि तीवर ासमिकय / अासमिकय सदस्यांना vkea=hr करू कतील." 7.

It is obvious that the above stated committee had to submit a report within three months from the date of it's constitution. There is no dispute that the committee is in place.

8.

In view of the above, the Writ Petition is partly allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside.

9.

We expect the said Committee constituted under the Government Resolution dated 27.06.2022, to submit its recommendations to the Government, before 14th November, 2024. The position existing prior to the issuance of the impugned order, is restored. However, being conscious of the fact that a committee has

been constituted by the Government Resolution dated 27.06.2022, any further decision of the authorities would be subject to the recommendations of the committee, if accepted and implemented by the State Government.

10.

In view of the delay and laches, the learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits that each of these Petitioners would deposit an amount of Rs.500/- as donation to the Advocates' Association of Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad, within 30 days. ( Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ) JPChavan