Dr. Vandana Dhananjay Gudadhe v. The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Its Principal Secretary And Anothers

wp6867.15 1/2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO. 6867 OF 2015 Dr.Vandana Dhananjay Gudadhe -vsThe State of Maharashtra, thr. Principal Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Dett.and ors. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.

or directions and Registrar's orders.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. A. I. Sheikh, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. N.R.Patil, A.G.P. For the respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & PRASANNA. B. VARALE, JJ.

DATE : 21.12.2015.

Heard.

The learned counsel for the parties state that the issue involved in this case was also involved in several writ petitions that were decided by the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court by the judgment dated 21/11/2013. It is stated that in the bunch of writ petitions bearing Writ Petition No.10283 of 2012 (Sudamrao Keshawrao Aher and others v. The State of Maharashtra and others) and others, the Aurangabad Bench had directed the respondents to re-fix the salary of the petitioners therein so as to bring it at par with the higher salary of the juniors. It was held by the Aurangabad Bench in the said judgment that the teachers could not have been discriminated only because the junior teacher had acquired Ph.D.Degree after the coming into force of the Sixth Pay Commission Recommendations.

The learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 agree that similar relief needs to be granted in favour of the petitioner herein.

wp6867.15 2/2 Hence, for the reasons recorded in the judgment dated 21/11/2013 in Writ petition No.10283 of 2012 and others, this writ petition is also allowed. The respondents are directed to compute the amount payable to the petitioner in accordance with the judgment dated 21/11/2013 and release the difference in salary to the petitioner within a period of three months. Order accordingly. No costs.

JUDGE JUDGE KHUNTE