Association Of College And University Superannuated Teachers Through Its President And Convenor v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 966 OF 2016 Association of College and University Superannuated Teachers, (Maharashtra) A society registered at No.MAH-853/2009 Under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, having its Head office at 20, Sawarkarnagar, N-5 (South), Cidco, Aurangabad, through its President andseession Convenor, Principal Dr.M.A.Wahul.
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32 The Director, Higher Education, Maharashtra State, Pune.
The Joint Director, Higher Education, Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad.
4.
The Joint Director, Higher Education, Nanded Region, Nanded.
5.
The Joint Director, Higher Education, Jalgaon Region, Jalgaon.
6.
The Joint Director, Higher Education, Nagpur Region, Nagpur.
7.
The Joint Director, Higher Education, Kolhapur Region, Kolhapur.
8.
The Joint Director, Higher Education, Pune Region, Pune.
9.
The Joint Director, Higher Education, Solapur Region, Solapur.
...
Ms.Neha B.Kamble, Adv., h/f Mr. S.V.Adwant, Adv. for the petitioner.
Mr. S.M.Ganachari, AGP for respondent nos. 1 to 9.
...
WRIT PETITION NO.977 OF 2016 Dr.Venkat Bapurao Tak, Age 72 years, Occ : Pensioner, R/o. Vaishnav Nagar,Karagaon Naka Road, Parbhani.
Dr.Laxmikant Vamanrao Ambegaonkar, Age 74 years, Occ: Pensioner, r/o Swagat Sant Dasganu Nagar, Parbhani.
Dr.Laxman Pandurangrao Kulkarni, Age 77 years, Occ: Pensioner, R/o Shivramnagar, Parbhani.
4.
Dr.Shankarrao Laxmanrao Rapte, Age 76 years, Occ: Pensioner, R/o Karegaon Road, Parbhani.
5.
Dr.Vithal Bapurao Shelke, Age 66 years, Occ: Pensioner, R/o. Niwara Lokmanya Nagar, Karagaon Road, Parbhani.
6.
Dr.Pandit Govindrao Sakhare, Age 76 years, Occ: Pensioner, r/o. 107, Samadhan Lokmanya Nagar, Parbhani.
7.
Dr.Nagnath Narayan Shinde, Age 68 years, Occ: Pensioner, r/o. 59 Manlee, Lokmanya Nagar, Parbhani.
8.
Dr.Vilas Trimbakrao Wattamwar, Age 65 years, Occ: Pensioner, R/o. Swati Building, Vishnunagar, Parbhani.
9.
Dr.Narwadkar Prabhkar Ramrao Age 68 years, Occ:Pensioner, R/o.Tuljabhuvan Ramkrishna Nagar, Basmat Road, Parbhani.
10.
Dr.Nilkanth Dattarao Deshmukh, Age 68 years, Occ. Pensioner, R/o. `Bhagya', Laxminagar, Basmat Road, Parbhani.
11.
Dr.Pandurang Waghoji Yengade, Age 70 years, Occ: Pensioner, r/o. Krishi Sarathi Colony, Krishi nagar, Parbhani.
12.
Dr.Ambaji Namdevrao Gitte, Age 64 years, Occ: Pensioner, r/o. Krishi Sarathi Colony, Basmat Road, Parbhani 431 401 ...PETITIONERS
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary, Agriculture, Animal Husbandary, Dairy Development And Fisheries Department, Mantralaya Annex, Mumbai.
The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary, Finance Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.
Vasantrao Naik Marathwada Agricultural University, Parbhani, through its Vice-Chancellor, Parbhani.
...RESPONDENTS
Ms.Neha B.Kamble, Adv., h/f Mr. S.V.Adwant, Adv. for the petitioner.
Mr. S.M.Ganachari, AGP for respondent nos. 1 & 2. Mr.M.N.Navandas, Adv., for respondent no.3.
...
CORAM: R.M.BORDE AND P.R.BORA, JJ.
DATE : March 18th, 2016 *** ORAL JUDGMENT: ( Per R.M.Borde, J.) Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable and heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
The grievance raised in the instant petitions is identical as in the decided matter presented by one Dr.Jeurkar Ramkrishna Keshavrao and others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others, in Writ Petition No.440 of 2015, decided by the Division Bench of this Court on 10th April, 2015. The petitioners claim entitlement to two advance increments on the basis of Government Resolution dated 11th December, 1999. Under the aforesaid Government Resolution, a decision was taken to award revised pay scale and also increments towards Career Advancement Scheme in favour of the petitioners who had secured Ph. D. degrees. In accordance
with the aforesaid Government Resolution, the effective date of implementation was 1st of January, 1996, for those who had acquired Ph.D. degrees earlier to the said date and in respect of those those who had acquired it subsequently, it was decided that the date of extension of benefits in such cases would be the date of acquisition of the Ph. D. degree. In both these petitions, the petitioners have acquired the Ph. D. degree and, as such, are entitled to claim benefits under the Government policy.
For the reasons recorded in the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court on 10th April, 2015 in Writ Petition No.440/2015, as well as in Writ Petition No.10431/2012, decided on 15th July, 2014, the petitions deserve to be allowed and those are accordingly allowed. The petitioners who have completed their Ph. D. degree prior to 1.1.1996, would be given benefit of two increments of Rs.420/-. The respondents shall make payment in respect of the aforesaid benefit of two increments with effect from 1.1.1996 with all consequential benefits to which the petitioners are legally entitled to in accordance with the relevant Government Resolutions and policy of the Government.
In respect of one of the teacher, petitioner in Writ Petition No.977/2016, he shall be entitled to the benefits from the date of acquisition of Ph.D. degree in accordance with the circular dated 27.6.2000 with consequential benefits admissible in accordance with the relevant regulations and the policy prescribed in that behalf.
4.
Counsel appearing for the petitioners canvassed that the petitioners are entitled to claim interest on the amount of advance increments which were not granted to the petitioners. Reliance is placed on the judgments in the matters of :
(a) Dr.Uma Agrawal Vs. State of U.P. and another ( (1999) 3 SCC 438) (b) S.K.Dua vs. State of Haryana and another ( (2008) 3 SCC 44) (c) S.R.Bhanrale vs. Union of India and others ( (1996) 10 SCC 172) (d) D.D.Tewari (Dead) through legal representatives versus Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others.
( (2014) 8 SCC 894) In all these matters relating to grant of retiral benefits, the Supreme Court observed that retirement benefit shall not be a bounty and those were withheld unnecessarily and
directed payment of interest on the amounts due. The judgments cited are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.
5.
In the instant case, there was a dispute as to the entitlement of the petitioners to claim advance increments. The issue was settled by this Court in the matter of Dr.Jeurkar R.K. Vs. State of Maharashtra ( Writ Petition No.440/2015) decided on 10th April, 2015. It is not a case of the petitioners that withholding of the benefits is because of the lapse on the part of the respondents or that it is an intentional act of the respondents depriving the petitioners to secure the benefits. Similarly, reliance is also placed on the judgment in the matter of Harkant Hiralal Vohra (Dead) by LRs Vs. Union of India and another ( (1998) 8 SCC 202).
Considering the facts giving rise to the aforesaid matter, and on perusal of orders passed in similar matters, neither it was canvassed that the benefit of interest shall be admissible to petitioners therein, nor demand for interest appears to have been pressed into service.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not deem it necessary to consider the request of the petitioners for grant of interest on the amount of advance
increments, due and payable.
Rule is accordingly made absolute in both the petitions. There shall be no order as to costs.
(P.R.BORA) (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE JUDGE ...
AGP/966-977-16wp