Bombay High CourtWP/13634/2018disposed off

Vinu Shrikrishna Lawar And Others v. The State Of Maharashtra And Another

2023-10-18Hon'Ble Shri Justice Mangesh S. Patil,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Shailesh P. Brahme31 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.

31] Dattatraya Bhimaji Lad 32] Nitinkumar Jagannath Ransur 33] Pandit Bhimraj Kharde 34] Sunil Balkrishna Bhanage 35] Krihna Dinkar Chavan (Deleted as per Court's Order dated 07-09-2021) 36] Rajendra Tatyaram Gaikwad 37] Suresh Shrawan Dodake 38] Ramchandra Raosaheb Perane 39] Babanrao Maruti Ilhe 40] Sunil Rangnath Karad 41] Bapurao Govinda Gaikwada 42] Vijay Janardan Tarade 43] Bharat Taterao Kolgane 44] Kumar Vishnu Gurav (Deleted as per Court's Order dated 07-09-2021) 45] Dr.

(Deleted as per Court's Order dated 07-09-2021) 71] Rajendra Mohan Gethe (Deleted as per Court's Order dated 07-09-2021) 72] Vishwanath Anant Shinde 73] Jaywant Dadaji Jadhav 74] Ashok Sidaray Jadhav (Deleted as per Court's Order dated 07-09-2021) 75] Kailas Jayram Kamble 76] Hemant Manohar Patil 77] Ashok Anantrao Pisal 78] Chandrashekhar Vasant Pujari 79] Ritu Satish Thakare 80] Murlidhar Shantaram Mahajan 81] Hemant Tukaram Patil 82] Deepak Damodhar Dudhade (Deleted as per Court's Order dated 07-09-2021) 83] S.H.

Pathan (Deleted as per Court's Order dated 07-09-2021) 84] Sanjay Baburao Gawade (Deleted as per Court's Order dated 07-09-2021) 85] Mohan Shankar Shirke 86] Sunil Krishna Kambale 87] Bhausaheb Vishwanath Pagire 88] Madhav Manohar Desai (Deleted as per Court's Order dated 07-09-2021) 89] Dattatraya Vithoba Kusalkar 90] Uddhav Yeshvantrao Bhoite 91] Baban Bhau Khutal 92] Dr. Jitendra Kashinath Dhemre (Deleted as per Court's Order dated 07-09-2021) 93] Tulshidas Baliram Bastewad 94] Suryabhan Savitra Ilhe (Deleted as per Court's Order dated 07-09-2021) 95] Dr. Amolic Viju Laxman 96] Dr. Mahanand Shivajirao Mane 97] Nazimuddin Badruddin Shaikh 98] Dr. Anilkumar Govindrao Bhoite 99] Dr. Arun Bhaurao Kamble 100] Dr. Madhukar Rajaram Bedis ...

Versus

1] The State of Maharashtra Through the Principal Secretary for Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, 3/31

Dairy Development and Fisheries Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2] Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth Rahuri, Tq. Rahuri District Ahmednagar Through its Registrar .. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12943 OF 2021 IN WP/13634/2018 (VINU SHRIKRISHNA LAWAR & OTHERS VS.

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.) ...

Mr. V. D. Hon Sr. Counsel a/w Mr. A. D. Sonkawade i/b. Mr. A. V. Hon - Advocate for petitioner, Mr. A. V. Anturkar, Sr. Counsel (Special Counsel) i/b. Mr. P. S. Patil - Additional Government Pleader for State Respondent no. 1, Mr. Parag P. Shahane a/w. Mr. P. L. Shahane - Advocate for Respondent No. 2 ...

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6428 OF 2021 1] Dr. Bajrang Limbaji Ayare 2] Dr. Santosh Vishnu Sawardekar 3] Dr. Vijay Gopal More 4] Dr. Sanjaykumar Ramchandra Torane 5] Dr. Prakash Bhaskar Sanap 6] Dr. Ashok Kumar Parshuram Chavan 7] Vinayak Narayan Jalgaonkar 8] Dr. Rakesh Chokhoba Gajbhiye (Deleted as per Court's Order dated 03-12-2021) 9] Dr. Atul Ganeshrao Mohod 10] Dr. Somnath Pralhad Sonawane 11] Dr. Sachinkumar Bhagwan Nandgude 12] Vijay Vitthal Aware (Deleted as per Court's Order dated 03-12-2021) 4/31

13] Dr. Sandeepkumar Sumerchand Jain (Deleted as per Court's Order dated 03-12-2021) 14] Dr. Shrikant Baslingappa Swami 15] Dr. Suresh Bhagwan Dodake 16] Dr. Anand Lalba Narangalkar (Deleted as per Court's Order dated 03-12-2021) 17] Mahadev Jagannath Mane (Deleted as per Court's Order dated 03-12-2021) 18] Dr. Pradip Chandrakant Haldavnekar 19] Dr. Mrs.Pushpa Dilip Patil 20] Dr. Anil Sawalaram Pawase 21] Dr. Prafulla Chandrakant Mali 22] Dr. Ramesh Laxman Kunkerkar ...

Petitioners

Versus

01] The State of Maharashtra Through the Principal Secretary for Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 02] Dr. Balasaheb Sawant Konkan Krishi Krishi Vidyapeeth, Dapoli Tq. Dapoli, District - Ratnigiri Through its Registrar ...

Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12721 OF 2021 IN WP/6428/2021 (BAJRANG LIMBAJI AYARE & ORS. VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.) ...

Mr. V. D. Hon Sr. Counsel a/w Mr. A. D. Sonkawade i/b. Mr. A. V. Hon - Advocate for petitioner, Mr. A. V. Anturkar, Sr. Counsel (Special Counsel) i/b. Mr. P. S. Patil - Additional Government Pleader for State Respondent no. 1, Mr. Sameer K, Sawant - Advocate for Respondent No. 2 WITH 5/31

WRIT PETITION NO. 7859 OF 2021 1] Dr. Rajendra Ganpatrao Deshmukh 2] Dr. Santosh Janardan Gahurkar 3] Dr. Vijaykumar Lachapatrao Gawande 4] Rajabhau Laxman Isal 5] Dr. Arvind Munjajirao Sonkamble 6] Smt. Priti Arvind Sonkamble 7] Dr. Surendra Rajaram Patil 8] Dr. Abhay Prakash Wagh 9] Dr. Vijay Punjabrao Mane 10] Dr. Ajay Krishnakumar Sadawarte 11] Dr. Rajendra Narayan Katkar 12] Sukhadeo Sitaram Tayade 13] Dr. Chandrakant Uttamrao Patil 14] Dr. Sanjay Bapuji Sakhare 15] Prakash Ambadas Gite 16] Dr. Dinkar Tryambakrao Deshmukh 17] Dr. Yogesh Deonathrao Charjan 18] Avinash Vithal Gajakos 19] Dr. Pramod Haribhau Bakane 20] Dr. Shyam Motiraoji Ghawade 21] Dr. Narayan Muralidhar Kale 22] Dr. Sheshrao Dawada Chavan 23] Dr. Sanjay Shrawan Wanjari 24] Dr. Surendra Rambhau Kalbande 25] Dr.

Ishvar Lakhichand Pardeshi 26] Rajendra Dinkar Walke 27] Dr. Anita Bhagwantrao Chorey 28] Pundlik Namdeorao Sapkal 29] Dr. Kishor Janardanrao Kubde 30] Dr. Anil Bhagwantrao Turkhede 31] Dr. Shashank Govindrao Bharad 32] Dr. Archana Wasudeorao Thorat 33] Dr. Nilkanth Ramchandra Potdukhe 34] Dr. Rameshwar Baliram Ghorade 35] Dr. Vishnukant Suryabhan Tekale 36] Dr. Nitin Kashiram Patke 37] Dr. Dilip Bhagwan Patil 38] Dr. Mohan Vyankati Totawar 39] Dr. Vijay Sakharam Kale 40] Dr. Jayant Punjabrao Deshmukh 41] Dr. Anil P. Karunakar 42] Dr. Vijay Vitthalrao Gabhane 43] Dr.

44] Diwakar Pandhari Wahile 45] Dr. Shridhar Shankarrao Rewatkar 46] Dr. Sandip Prabhudas Lambe 47] Dr. Pankaj Prakashchandra Bhople 48] Dr. Varsha Vijayrao Tapre 49] Dr. Eknath Rangnath Vaidya 50] Dr. Mahendra Muralidhar Deshmukh 51] Dr. Suchita Vikaskumar Gupta 52] Dr. Kishor Dhanpal Gharde 53] Dr. Santosh Pundlik Divekar 54] Dr. Sanjay Manikrao Bhoyar 55] Dr. Pramod Kundlikrao Wakle 56] Dr. Ashok Nathu Patil 57] Rajesh Devidasrao Ghorpade 58] Dr. Shyam Dalsingh Jadhao 59] Nitin Subodh Gupta 60] Dr. Govindsing Gopalsing Jadhav 61] Dr. Ishwar Mahadeo Nagarare 62] Dr. Vinod Gulabrao Nagdeote 63] Dr. Gautam Rambhau Shamkuwar 64] Dr. Ommala Deorao Kchanwar 65] Mahendra Krishna Moon 66] Dr. Nishant Vasantrao Shende 67] Dr. Nitin Ramesh Koshti 68] Dr. Wachandas Parmanand Badole 69] Dr.

Arun Sheshrao Ingole 70] Rambhau Wamanrao Gawande 71] Dr. Milind Kisan Rathod 72] Vilas Sahadeorao Telgote 73] Dr. Shrikant Balasaheb Brahmankar 74] Dr. Vilas Gulabrao Atkare 75] Dr. Prema Ravindra Manapure 76] Dr. Vijaykumar Shriram Khawale 77] Dr. Vilas Jairam Tambe 78] Dr. Ramakant Pundlikrao Gajbhiye 79] Dr. Vinod Uttamrao Raut 80] Dr. Purushottam Sheshrao Neharkar 81] Dr. Ravindra Shankarrao Waghmare 82] Dr. Prashant Vasantrao Shende 83] Dr. Vijay Mahadeo Ilorkar 84] Dr. Shrikant Baliram Amarshettiwar 85] Dr. Devanand Modka Panchabhai 86] Dr. Pramod Venkatrao Yadgirwar ...

Versus

7/31

01] State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 02] Maharashtra Council of Agricultural Education and Research, through its Director General, 132-B, Bhamburda, Bhosale Nagar, Pune 411 007 03] Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh Krushi Vidyapeeth, Akola through its Registrar, Krushi Nagar, Akola ... Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9407 OF 2021 IN WP/7859/2021 (DR. RAJENDRA GANPATRAO DESHMUKH & ORS.

VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.) ...

Mr. B. G. Kulkarni & Mr. N. B. Khandare - Advocate for Petitioner Mr. A. V. Anturkar, Sr. Counsel (Special Counsel) i/b. Mr. P. S. Patil - Additional Government Pleader for State Respondent no. 1, Mr. S. K. Kadam - Advocate for Respondent No. 2 Mrs. Rashmi S. Kulkarni - Advocate for Respondent No. 3 ...

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 10687 OF 2022 1] Dr. Krishna S/o Dinkar Chavan 2] Sampat S/o Shankarrao Kolpe 3] Dr. Nilkanth Bapusaheb More 4] Dr. Vinayak Ramchandra Joshi 5] Dr. Deepak S/o Deamodar Dudhade 6] Dr. Rajendra S/o Mohan Gethe 7] Dr. Ashok S/o Sidram Jadhav 8] Dr. Sarfrajkhan Habibkhan Pathan 9] Dr. Jitendra S/o Kashinath Dehmre 10] Dr. Suryabhan S/o Savita Ilhe 11] Dr. Madhav S/o Manohar Desai 12] Dr. Jotiram S/o Bhimrao Shinde 8/31

13] Dr. Mukund Tanhaji Bhingarde ...

Petitioners

Versus

1] The State of Maharashtra Through the Principal Secretary For Agriculture, Animal Husbandry Dairy Development and Fisheries Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2] Mahatma Phule Krushi Vidyapeeth Rahuri, Tq. Rahuri District Ahmednagar Through its Registrar .. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7070 OF 2023 IN WP/10687/2022 (DR. KRISHNA DINKAR CHAVAN & ORS. VS.

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.) ...

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6274 OF 2023 Shrikant S/o Keshavrao Aherkar ...

Petitioner

Versus

1] The Vice Chancellor, Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth, Akola, Krishi Nagar, Akola - 444 001 2] The Dean (Agriculture) and Director of Instructions, Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth, Akola - 444 001 3] The Registrar, Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth, Akola, Krishi Nagar, Akola - 444 001.

9/31

4] The Auditor and Comptroller, Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth, Akola, Krishi Nagar, Akola - 444 001 5] The Pay and Accounts Officer, Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth, Akola, Krishi Nagar, Akola - 444 001 6] The Head of the Department of Entomology, Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth, Akola, Krishi Nagar, Akola - 444 001.

... Respondents ...

Mr. D. M. Kale a/w Gazala Shaikh, Sarvesh Puddatwar - Advocate for petitioner Mr. A. V. Anturkar, Sr. Counsel (Special Counsel) i/b. Mr. P. S. Patil - Additional Government Pleader for State Respondent/State. Mrs. Rashmi S. Kulkarni - Advocate for Respondent No. 4 ...

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 13858 OF 2018 1] Dr. Rakesh Dnyandeo Ahire 2] Shri. Bhalchandra Vithalrao Patil 3] Dr. Sunil Sheshrao Mane 4] Dr. Sanjeev Dhondiba Bantewad 5] Dr. Deepak Khanderao Patil 6] Dr. Kiran Tukaram Jadhav 7] Dr. Raosaheb Gangaram Bhagyawant 8] Dr. Sunildutt Rajeshwar Jakkawad 9] Dr. Suryakant Baburao Pawar 10] Shri. Raosaheb Sampatrao Raut 11] Dr. R.C. Mahajan 12] Dr. A.A. Bharose 13] Dr. P.N. Karanjikar 14] Shri A.V. Gutte 15] Dr. D.S. Perke 16] Dr. B.M. Thombre 17] Dr. V.S. Khandare 18] Dr. D.S. Chauhan 19] Dr. R.B. Kshirgar 20] Dr. Shivaji Sayalu Yadlod 21] Dr. V.M. Bhosle 22] Dr. K.S. Gadhe 23] Prof. S.L. Badgujar 10/31

24] Dr. H.M. Syed 25] Prof. H.W. Deshpande 26] Dr. K.S. Baig 27] Dr. Udhav Nilabhanu Alse 28] Dr. K.T. Apet 29] Prof. Santosh Haibati Kamble 30] Dr. G.K. Londhe 31] Dr. H.V. Kalpande 32] A.K. Gore 33] Dr. V.K. Khargakharate 34] Shivaji Pandurang Mehtre ...

Petitioners

Versus

1] The State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary, Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries Department, Mantralay, Mumbai 2] Vasantrao Naik Marathwada Agriculture University, Parbhani through Registrar ...

Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9299 OF 2021 IN WP/13858/2018 (DR. RAKESH DNYANDEO AHIRE & ORS. VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.) WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12269 OF 2022 IN WP/13858/2018 (THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. DR. RAKESH DNYANDEO AHIRE AND ORS.) ...

Mr. N. B. Khandare - Advocate for petitioner Mr. A. V. Anturkar, Sr. Counsel (Special Counsel) i/b. Mr. P. S. Patil - Additional Government Pleader for State Respondent/State. Mr. M. N. Nawandar - Advocate for Respondent No. 2 ...

WITH 11/31

WRIT PETITION NO. 6275 OF 2023 Dr. Arun Sheshrao Ingole ...

Petitioners

Versus

1] The Principal Secretary, Agriculture, Animals Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries Department State of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Annexe, Mumbai - 400 032.

2] The Principal Secretary of Finance Department, State of Maharashtra, 5th Floor, Mantralaya, Hutatma Rajguru Chowk, Madam Kama Road, Mumbai - 400 032 3] The Director General of MCAER, Pune, Office at 132/B, Bhamburda, Bhosale Nagar, Pune - 411 007 4] The Joint Secretary of Agriculture, Animal, Dairy & Fishery Department, State of Maharashtra, Madam Kama Road, Annex, 5th Floor, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032 5] The Vice Chancellor, Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth, Akola, at Post Krishi Nagar, Akola - 444 104 (M.S.) 6] The Registrar, Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth, Akola, At Post Krishi Nagar, Akola - 444 104 (M.S.) 7] The Comptroller, Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth, Akola, At Post Krishi Nagar, Akola - 444 104 (M.S.) ... Respondents ...

12/31

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6276 OF 2023 1] Shri Rambhau Wamanrao Gawande 2] Dr. Rajendra Ganpatrao Deshmukh 3] Dr. Chandrakant Uttamrao Patil 4] Dr. Ashok Nathu Patil 5] Dr. Sanjay Shrawan Wanjari 6] Shri. Mahendra Krishna Moon ...

Petitioners

Versus

1] The Principal Secretary, Agriculture, Animals Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries Department, State of Maharashtra Mantralaya, Annexe, Mumbai - 400 032 2] The Principal Secretary of Finance Department, State of Maharashtra, 5th Floor, Mantralaya, Hutatma Rajguru Chowk, Madam Kama Road, Mumbai - 400 032 3] The Director General of MCAER, Pune Office at 132/B, Bhamburda, Bhosale Nagar, Pune - 411 007 4] The Joint Secretary of Agriculture, Animal, Dairy & Fishery Department, State of Maharashtra, Madam Kama Road, Annex, 5th Floor, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032 5] The Vice Chancellor, Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth, Akola, At Post Krishi Nagar, Akola - 444 104 (M.S.) 6] The Registrar, Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth, Akola, At Post Krishi Nagar, Akola - 444 104 (M.S.) 7] The Comptroller, Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth, Akola At Post Krishi Nagar, Akola - 444 104 (M.S.) ...

Respondents ...

13/31

CORAM

: MANGESH S. PATIL & SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.

RESERVED ON : 11 AUGUST 2023 PRONOUNCED ON: 18 OCTOBER 2023 JUDGMENT (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) :

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned senior advocates and learned advocates representing the different petitioners and the respondents in all these petitions. Though the petitions have been filed at different benches, those have been clubbed and assigned to this bench since these involve same issue.

The common issue that arises for consideration in all these matters is as to if the petitioners who have been serving as associate professors in the respondent agricultural universities from across the state are entitled to the revision of their pay scale pursuant to the communication received from the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development addressed to the Secretary of the University Grants Commission (UGC) on 31.12.2008, at par with the teachers from the same category in the universities of the Central Government, on the recommendations of the sixth pay commission. 3.

On 28.02.2009 UGC addressed a letter to the Education Secretary of all the States for undertaking revision of pay of the teachers according to 6th pay recommendations.

The Government of India through the Ministry of Agriculture issued a communication to the Chief Secretaries of the State on 14/31

13.03.2009 regarding revision of salaries of the teachers of the State Agricultural universities. Based on that the Government of Maharashtra through Ministry of Agriculture published a detailed Government Resolution dated 18.03.2010 directing revision of pay of the teachers like the petitioners who are the assistant professors in the agricultural universities in the State receiving government aid and affiliated in accordance with the UGC regulations.

The Government Resolution of the State Government dated 18.03.2010 inter alia provided Appendix I, in respect of the assistant professor (selection grade) / associate professor. It provided at serial no. 3 and 4 as under :- Sr no.

Pre-revised designation / pay scale Revised Designation/Pay Band + AGP Function of Incumbents/ New Entrants 3.

Assistant Prof (Selection Grade) / Associate Prof :

12000-42018300 (Not completed years on 01.01.06) Asststant Professor (Selection Grade) / Associate Professor (till they complete 3 years) / Assistant Professor :

15600-39100+ AGP i) Incumbent Assistant Professor (Selection Grade) / Associate Professor not competed 3 years on 01.01.2006 shall be fixed at the appropriate stage in P.B. - 15600-39100 with AGP 8000 till they complete 3 years in 12000-18300, and thereafter shall be placed in PB37400-67000 with AGP of 9000 and redesignated as Associate Professor.

ii) Assistant Professors after completion of 5 years in AGP 7000 on satisfying the eligibility conditions laid down by the UGC/ICAR from time to time.

Assistant Professor (Selection Grade)/ Associate Professor:12000420-8300 (Completed 3 years on 1.1.06) Associate Professor:

37400-67000 + AGP 9000 i) Incumbent Assistant Professors (Selection Grade)/ Associate Professors completed 3 years on 1.1.06 in the scale of 12000-420-18300, shall be placed in P.B.- 37400-67000 with AGP 9000 and redesignated as Associate Professor. ii) Assistant Professors after completion of 3 years in AGP 8000 on satisfying the eligibility conditions laid down by the UGC from time to time.

15/31

On 20.09.2010, a corrigendum was issued in respect of Government Resolution dated 18.03.2010 and in paragraph no. 9(ii), it was stated that it should be read as 01.01.2006 to 31.03.2010 and Appendix I-A was added. The relevant correction in respect of entry at serial no. 8 of the Government Resolution provided as under :- Sr no Name of Post Existing Pay Scale shown in M.C.S (Revised pay) Rules, Eligibility Revised Pay Band 8.

Associate Professor

1) 12000-420-18300 Associate Professor as on 1.1.2006 & also directly selected or promoted thereafter 37400-67000 +9000 (Grade pay)

2) 12000-420-18300 Completed 3 years in AGP Rs. 9000 with Ph.D 37400-67000 +10000 (Grade pay) Accordingly the petitioners' scales were revised and they were all fixed in the scale of 37,400-67,000 + 10,000 GP. 7.

It is necessary to note that some of the petitioners have withdrawn the writ petitions and the facts can be collated as under :- Details of Writ Petitions Sr no Writ Petition no.

Name of State Agricultural Universities Total petitioners 1.

13634/ 2018 (Aurangabad bench) MPKV (Rahuri) 80 (100-20) petitioners have withdrawn 2.

6428/ 2021 (Bombay) BSKKV (Dapoli) 17 (22-5) petitioners have withdrawn 3.

1385/ 2018 (Aurangabad bench) VNMKV (Parbhani) 4.

7859/ 2021 (Aurangabad bench) Dr. PDKV (Akola) 84 (86-2) petitioners have withdrawn the WP 16/31

6274/ 2023 (Nagpur bench) As above Shrikant keshavrao Aherkar 6.

6275/ 2023 (Nagpur bench) As above Arun Sheshrao Ingole 7.

6276/ 2023 (Nagpur bench) As above 8.

On 24.08.2018 the State government through the Agricultural department cancelled the corrigendum and directed the recoveries to be made from the petitioners and similarly situated persons. Aggrieved thereby, these petitions.

The learned senior advocate Mr. Hon, Mr. Kale, Mr. Khandare and Mr. Kulkarni for the petitioners would submit that the Government Resolution dated 18.03.2010 issued by the State government was regarding pay structure of different categories of teachers which was to be implemented in accordance with the sixth pay commission recommendation with effect from 01.01.2006. Those posts included the Assistant Professors / Associate Professors / Professors in colleges and universities. Since the petitioners are directly recruited they were governed by clause 2(a)(i), (viii) and (xiv) and were not governed by clause 2(a)(ix) and (x). They would therefore submit that the petitioners' pay has been revised in accordance with the Government Resolution and the impugned action of recoveries is clearly illegal and could not have been revised by resorting cancellation ex post facto. 10.

Per contra, the learned senior advocate Mr. Anturkar for the State who appears as a special counsel submits that by the Government of India vide communication dated 31.12.2008 and 13.03.2009 had 17/31

informed the State of Maharashtra that if it so wanted it could adopt and implement the pay scale provided therein as framed by the Central Government and in that case, the Central Government will undertake the financial obligation to the tune of 80% till 31.03.2010. He would submit that it was expressly informed to the State that the scheme was to be implemented as it is and without any modification. He would submit that the Centrally sponsored scheme was to be implemented strictly in the letter and spirit. The Central government was to bear 80% of the financial obligation only upto 31.03.2010. He would submit that corrigendum dated 20.09.2010 was issued without seeking concurrence of the finance department as is required by the Rules of Business framed under Article 166 of the Constitution of India.

The error was sought to be rectified by issuing impugned communication dated 24.08.2018. The petitioners had derived the financial benefit due to such wrong pay fixation to which they were never entitled to and the impugned action merely seeks to make recoveries of the money to which they were not entitled to.

11.

Mr. Anturkar would submit that the petitioners had executed undertakings to refund the excess payments received if it was so found at a later point. Those undertakings were given in accordance with the relevant clause from the basic G.R. dated 18.03.2010. The situation would be covered by High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others Vs. Jagdev Singh; (2016) 14 SCC 267. Even if they claim to fall under 18/31

specific category laid down in the matter of The State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (WhiteWasher) AIR 2015 SC 696, those directions cannot be made equally applicable to all the petitioners. If at all they claim to be entitled to derive some benefit from the categories of cases contemplated therein, it is the prerogative of the State. They are supposed to make representation as contemplated therein which the State Government may consider on its own merits depending upon the fact situation and on case to case basis. He would submit that the petitioners who are holding the higher posts in the agricultural universities cannot claim any inherent right to retain the money received wrongfully. If they were not entitled to the revision of the pay scale and still have been able to recover something due to wrong pay fixation, the State government being the employer can certainly seek to make the recoveries.

12.

We have considered the submissions and perused the record. Admittedly, the recommendations of the 6th pay commission were made applicable to the State Agricultural Universities and two affiliated colleges by Government Resolution dated 18.03.2010. It also provided Appendix I. Since the controversy revolves around the revision of the pay of the persons from the cadre of Associate Professor, the relevant extract of the GR contained in clause 2 (viii) to (xiv) would be relevant and which read as under :

"(viii) Posts of Associate Professor shall be in the Pay Band of 19/31

Rs.37400-67000, with AGP of Rs.9000. Directly recruited Associate Professors shall be placed in the Pay Band of Rs.37400-67000 with an AGP of Rs.9000, at the appropriate stage in the Pay Band in terms of the conditions of appointment.

(ix) Incumbent Associate Professors and Assistant professors (Selection Grade) who have completed 3 years in the current pay scale of Rs.12000-18300 on 1.1.2006 shall be placed in Pay Band of Rs.37400-67000 with AGP Pay of Rs.9000 and shall be re-designated as Associate Professor. (x) Incumbent Associate Professors and Assistant professors (Selection Grade) who had not completed three years in the pay scale of Rs. 12000-18300 on 1.1.2006 shall be placed at the appropriate stage in the Pay Band of Rs.15600-39100 with AGP of Rs.8000 till they complete 3 years of service in the grade of Assistant professors (Selection Grade) Associate Professors, and thereafter shall be placed in the higher Pay Band of Rs.37400-67000 and accordingly re-designated as Associate Professor.

(xi) Associate Professors and Assistant Professors (Selection Grade) in service at present shall continue to be designated as Assistant Professor (Selection Grade) or Associate Professor, as the case may be, until they are placed in the Pay Band of Rs.37,400-67000 and re-designated as Associate Professor in the manner described in (x) above (xii) Assistant Professors completing 3 years of teaching in the AGP of Rs.8000 shall be eligible, subject to other conditions that may be prescribed by the UGC/ICAR and the university, to move to the Pay Band of Rs.37400-67000 with AGP of Rs.9000 and to be designated as Associate Professor.

(xiii) Associate Professor completing 3 years of service in the AGP of Rs.9000 and possessing a Ph.D degree in the discipline shall be eligible to be appointed and designated as Professor, subject to other conditions of academic performance as laid down by the UGC/ICAR and if any by the university. No teacher other than those with a Ph.D. shall be promoted, appointed or designated as Professor. The Pay Band for the post of Professors shall be Rs.3740067000 with AGP of Rs. 10000. (xiv) The pay of a directly recruited Professor shall be fixed at a stage not below Rs.43000 in the Pay Band of Rs.3740020/31

67000, with the applicable AGP of Rs.10000."

Table showing Pre-revised Designations/ Pay Scales and corresponding Designations/Pay bands and Academic Grade Pay (AGP) as on and from 1st January 2006 for University/College Teachers and Other personnel in University/College contained in Appendix I are as under : Sr no.

Pre-revised designation / pay scale Revised Designation/Pay Band + AGP Function of Incumbents/ New Entrants 1.

Assistant Professor 8000275-13500 Assistant Professor :

15600-39100+ AGP i) Incumbent Assistant Professor shall be fixed at the appropriate stage in P.B. - 15600-39100 with AGP 6000 2.

Assistant Professor (Senior Scale)10000325-15200 i) Incumbent Assistant Professor (Senior Scale) shall be fixed at the appropriate stage in P.B. -15600- 39100 with AGP 7000 ii) Assistant Professors after completion of 4 years for those possessing Ph.D at entry level., 5 years possessing M.Phil/M.Tech. Etc. at entry level and 6 years for others (without Ph.D./M.Phil.etc) in AGP 6000 on satisfying the eligibility conditions laid down by the UGC/ICAR from time to time.

Assistant Professor (Selection Grade)/Associate Professor :

12000-42018300 (Not completed 3 years on 01.01.2006) Associate Professor:

15600-39100 + AGP 7000 i) Incumbent Assistant Professor (Selection Grade)/Associate Professor not competed 3 years on 01.01.2006 shall be fixed at the appropriate stage in P.B. - 15600-39100 with AGP 8000 till they complete 3 years in 12000-18300, and thereafter shall be placed in PB - 37400-67000 with AGP of 9000 and redesignated as Associate Professor.

ii) Assistant Professors after completion of 5 years in AGP 7000 on satisfying the eligibility conditions laid down by the UGC/ICAR from time to time.

Assistant Professor (Selection Grade)/Associate Professor :

12000-42018300 (Completed 3 years on 01.01.06) Assistant Professor (Selection Grade)/Associate Professor (till they complete 3 years)/ Assistant Professor:

15600-39100+AGP Associate Professor :

37400-67000 + AGP i) Incumbent Assistant Professors (Selection Grade)/Associate Professors completed 3 years on 01.01.06 in the scale of 12000-420-18300, shall be placed in P.B.-37400-67000 with AGP 9000 and re-designated as Associate Professor.

ii) Assistant Professors after competition of 3 years in AGP 8000 on satisfying the eligibility conditions laid down by the UGC from time to time.

21/31

13.

The learned advocates for the petitioners made endeavour to demonstrate clause 2(a)(viii) to (xiv) (supra) and particularly emphasized clause (viii) to buttress their submissions that the petitioners being the directly recruited associate professors have been correctly fixed in the revised pay band of Rs.37400-67000 with AGP of Rs.9000. As against which Mr. Anturkar would interpret these clauses to bring home his point that the Associate Professors were mandatorily required to complete three years of service in the grade of Assistant Professors (Selection Grade)/Associate Professors in the pay band of Rs.1560039100 with AGP of Rs.8000/-. It is only after completion of three years in that pay band that such Associates Professors could be placed in the higher pay band of 37400-67000.

14.

As can be seen, clause (viii) is in the form of a declaration that the post of Associate Professor would fall in the pay band of 3740067000. Further clause (xii) if read conjointly with clause (viii) would demonstrate that any person appointed as an Assistant Professor for first three years has to be placed in the pay band of Rs.15600-39100 with AGP of Rs.8000. Those who have already completed three years as on 01.01.2006 would be placed in the pay band of 37400-67000 with AGP of 9000. Those who had not completed three years as on 01.01.2006 would continue to be placed in the pay band 15600-39100 with AGP of 8000 till they would complete three years and thereafter would be placed in the higher pay band of 37400-67000 with AGP of 9000. 22/31

15.

Admittedly, this Government Resolution dated 18.03.2010 with Appendix - I, inter alia laid down rules for fixation of pay in the revised pay band and fixation pay in the revised scale after 01.01.2006. In clause 5 it contained a table shown pre-revised designation/pay scales and corresponding designation/pay band and Academic Grade Pay (AGP) as on and from 01.01.2006 (supra). If the entries at serial Nos.1 to 4 are carefully examined, the aforementioned inference would be fully corroborated from the last column to the effect that it is only after completion of three years on the post of Assistant Professor (Selection Grade)/Associate Professor for a period of three years in the pay band of 12000-420-18300 they have to be placed in the pay band of 3740067000 with AGP 9000.

Therefore, a plain reading of these provisions from the basic Government Resolution dated 18.03.2010 as understood in the light of Appendix-I is sufficient to negate the attempt of the petitioner to demonstrate that they were entitled to be fixed in the revised pay scale of 37400-67000 with AGP of 9000 on 01.01.2006. Though the revised pay scale for the post of Assistant Professor with effect from 01.01.2006 was to be that much, it was incumbent on the part of the persons like the petitioners to have completed three years of service in the pre-revised scale of 12000-420-18300. 16.

The corrigendum dated 20.09.2010 was issued by the Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Department and Fisheries Department of the Government of Maharashtra thereby adding Appendix 23/31

- I-A to the basic Government Resolution dated 18.03.2010. As is pointed out herein above the entry No.8 from Appendix-I-A would read that in respect of the Assistant Professors the existing payscale according to the 5th Pay commission which was 12000-420-18300, was shown to be revised to 37,400-67,000 with grade pay of 9000 to all the incumbent Assistant Professor as on 01.01.2006 and also directly selected or promoted thereafter and on completion of three years in that scale possessing Ph.D were shown to be entitled to the same pay band but with grade pay of 10000/-. Ex facie, this Appendix-I-A was running contrary to the basic GR and particularly the clauses 2 (viii) to 2 (xiv). 17.

It is, therefore, quite clear that the corrigendum dated 20.09.2010 in all probability was issued by the concerned department of the State Government which led to the chaos. It is in view of such corrigendum and not otherwise that the petitioners have been claiming and also were paid in the revised pay scale ignoring this mandatory requirement contained in the basic GR dated 18.03.2010 requiring the incumbent Associate Professors to put in three years in the pay scale of 12000-420-18300.

18.

In order to overcome and rectify such error the Government issued the impugned order dated 24.08.2018 thereby revoking the corrigendum dated 20.09.2010. Consequent thereto the Agricultural Universities issued circulars expressly directing that the Associate Professors who had not completed three years in the pay scale of 1200024/31

420-18300 whose pays was revised and fixed in the scale of 37400-67000 with AGP 9000 to be recovered.

19.

The stand of the State Government that the corrigendum dated 20.09.2010 was issued without the approval of the Finance Department as was mandatorily required by the Maharashtra Government Rules of Business and Instructions issued under. Clause 2 and 3 of Article 166 of the Constitution of India has not been controverted by the petitioners. Obviously, though there cannot be any dispute about the legality of the Government Resolution dated 18.03.2010, as far as the corrigendum is concerned, apparently it was issued without concurrence of the Finance Department as is required by Rule 48 of the Maharashtra Government Rules of Business and Instructions framed under Article 166 (2) of the Constitution of India. By the impugned Government decision dated 24.08.2018, this corrigendum has been revoked.

20.

Independently, as is mentioned in herein above, the Assistant Professor (Selection Grade)/Associate Professors were not entitled to be fixed in the revised pay scale under the 6th Pay Commission in the pay band of 37400-67000 with GP of 9000 without putting in three years irrespective of the fact that they were in pay scale of 12000-420-18300 or in the pay scale of 15600-39100 and were not entitled to the revised pay scale directly of 37400-67000. The impugned decision of the Government which was even otherwise having the legal infirmity in the form of want 25/31

of previous approval of the Finance Department and was merely a departmental circular, the action to revoke it to set right the things cannot be legally questioned. It is not that something to which the petitioners were otherwise entitled to was being taken away. We find no legal infirmity in the impugned order.

21.

Incidentally this last observation is being resorted to as a reasoning by Mr. Anturkar to buttress his submission that in the peculiar circumstances of the present matters even the petitioners cannot derive the benefit of the decision in the matter of Rafiq Masih (WhiteWasher) (supra). He would submit that once it is found that the petitioners have received something to which they were never entitled to, it would be a matter of unjust enrichment. The petitioners are from group A cadre, highly qualified and had even undertaken to refund the amount if it was erroneously paid to them during pay fixation. He would submit that even otherwise, the excess payment made to the petitioners due to wrong pay fixation would be recovered from the arrears to be paid to them in the subsequent pay fixation according to the 7th Pay Commission.

Even it would be a prerogative of the State, taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances qua each of these petitioners and similarly placed persons but the petitioners in no way can derive the benefit from Rafiq Masih (WhiteWasher) (supra). 22.

Per contra, Mr. Hon, Mr. Kulkarni, Mr. Khandare and Mr. Kale for the petitioners would submit that Rafiq Masih (WhiteWasher) (supra) 26/31

lays down various categories of the cases and even it is mentioned therein that those categories are not exhaustive. Group C and Group D employees is only one of the categories. Some of the petitioners have superannuated and would also be governed by the other categories. 23.

True it is that even prior to Rafiq Masih (WhiteWasher) (supra) the issue regarding recoveries to be made from the employees in respect of the excess payment made during pay fixation were dealt with and all those matters were considered in the matter of Rafiq Masih (WhiteWasher) (supra). However, simultaneously one cannot lose site of the fact that the field occupied by Rafiq Masih (WhiteWasher) (supra) subsequently was also a matter of consideration by the Supreme Court in the case of High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others Vs. Jagdev Singh; (2016) 14 SCC 267.

24.

Suffice for the purpose to observe that the basic Government Resolution dated 18.03.2010 inter alia expressly provided in clause 11(iv) that an undertaking shall be taken from every beneficiary under the scheme to the effect that any excess payment made on account of incorrect fixation of pay in the revised Pay Bands or grant of inappropriate Pay Band/Academic Grade Pay or any other excess payment made shall be adjustable against the future payments due or otherwise to the beneficiary in the same manner as provided in HRD Ministry's O.M. No. F.23-7/2008-IFD dated 23.10.2008 read with Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure) O.M. No.F.1-1/2008-IC dated 27/31

30.08.2008, which was annexed as Appendix - III. All the petitioners and several similarly situated persons whose pays were revised pursuant to this Government Resolution dated 18.03.2010 were bound by this clause and have executed requisite undertakings. If such is the state of affairs, the petitioners' case would stand on a different footing as compared to the iniquitous recoveries in the situations covered by Rafiq Masih (WhiteWasher) (supra). This is what precisely is the ratio of Jagdev Singh (supra). Paragraph Nos.10 to 13 are relevant and read as under ;

10. In State of Punjab & Ors etc. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. (AIR 2015 SC 696) this Court held that while it is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship where payments have mistakenly been made by an employer, in the following situations, a recovery by the employer would be impermissible in law: "(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service). (ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.

(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post.

(v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover." [emphasis supplied]

11. The principle enunciated in proposition (ii) above cannot apply to a situation such as in the present case. In the present case, the officer to whom the payment was made in the first instance was clearly placed on notice that any payment found to have been made in excess would be required to be refunded. The officer furnished an undertaking while opting for the revised pay scale. He is bound by the undertaking.

12. For these reasons, the judgment of the High Court which set aside 28/31

the action for recovery is unsustainable. However, we are of the view that the recovery should be made in reasonable instalments. We direct that the recovery be made in equated monthly instalments spread over a period of two years.

13. The judgment of the High Court is accordingly set aside. The Civil Appeal shall stand allowed in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs."

25.

In view of the fact that the petitioners are highly educated and having executed undertakings and having derived the benefit subject to the stipulation contained in Appendix - III (supra) cannot now seek to rely upon the decision in the matter of Rafiq Masih (WhiteWasher) (supra) and rather would be governed by Jagdev Singh (supra). Though few other judgments have been cited at the bar by both the sides, for the reasons mentioned herein above, reliance on the decision in the matter of Jagdev Singh (supra) seals the fate of the matters. 26.

Perhaps in the light of the observation in Jagdev Singh (supra) Mr. Anturkar fairly submitted at the bar that even if some concession is to be extended to any of the petitioners or similarly situated persons, it would depend upon the peculiar facts and circumstances for which the incumbent will have to make appropriate representation which could be considered by the State on its individual merit. However, he would submit, no blanket protection could be granted. Even the undertakings mentioned herein above enables the Government to get the excess payment refunded either by adjustment against future payments or otherwise.

27.

The upshot, the impugned action of issuing order dated 29/31

24.08.2018 thereby revoking corrigendum dated 20.09.2010 and the subsequent steps being taken by the universities pursuant thereto of seeking the refund from the petitioners cannot be said to be illegal. Therefore in substance the petitions fail.

28.

The writ petitions are dismissed. However, the State Government shall wherever the petitioners and the similarly placed persons are still in the employment shall make the recoveries from the future payments to be made to them. In respect of such of the petitioners and similarly placed persons who have superannuated they shall be at liberty to make appropriate representation to the State Government to be routed through the respective universities/colleges which shall be considered by the State Government on case to case basis and on individual merit. It is made clear that we are not laying down any parameters for extending such concession.

29.

The rule is discharged in above terms.

[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ] JUDGE JUDGE 30.

At this juncture the learned advocates for the petitioners submit that the interim relief has been in operation till date and the petitioners be extended some breathing time so that they can approach the Supreme Court.

30/31

31.

Operation of this order shall stand stayed for a period of three weeks.

[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ] JUDGE JUDGE habeeb 31/31