Ganesh Kisan Tarle vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors.

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER M. S. KARNIK, J.) :

This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks a direction for quashing and setting aside the letters dated 23/02/2016, 24/10/2019 and 18/01/2020 issued by the respondent No.2 – The Joint Director of Vocational Education and Training, Nashik. It is further prayed that the respondents be directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for senior scale with effect from 01/07/1988 and also grant him benefits of revised pay scale with effect from 01/01/1996 and as per the recommendation of the 7^th Pay Commission.

The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in Electronics with respondent No.3 - Karmaveer Kakasaheb Wagh Vidyalaya with effect from 01/07/1988. The appointment of the petitioner was approved by the Deputy Director of Vocational Education and Training, Mumbai, by the order dated 10/10/1988 thereby relaxing condition of requirement of prior experience. The Government of Maharashtra, School Education Department issued a Government Resolution (GR) dated 16/10/1992 regarding the implementation of two/three tier pay scale eligible for full-time higher secondary teacher serving in secondary schools and junior colleges. The resolution provided for the grant of the revised pay scales to qualify teachers with retrospective effect from 01/01/1986 subject to the conditions prescribed therein. The said GR was not made applicable to the vocational/technical education teachers teaching +2 classes.

The Government of Maharashtra issued a clarification dated 28/12/1993 to the GR dated 16/10/1992 resolving doubts and difficulties regarding the implementation of the revised pay scales. The clarification specifically provided that instead of the requirement of 12 years of qualifying service, it should be amended to 12 years of service from the date of appointment. The said GR dated 16/10/1992 was extended to the vocational/technical education teachers teaching +2 classes with effect from 25/03/1994.

A Corrigendum dated 12/12/1994 was issued by Vocational Education Department, thereby clarifying that eligibility for the senior pay scale would be based on 12 years of service from the date of appointment. The respondent No.3 received grant on 01/07/1994 and hence, started functioning on grantable basis. The petitioner was appointed on the aided post with effect from 14/06/1994. The said appointment was also approved by the Deputy Director of Vocational Education and Training, Nashik.

Pay fixation of the petitioner was approved by the District Vocational Education Officer, by an order dated 07/10/1997, wherein it is held that the appointment date of the petitioner is 01/07/1988 and from the subsequent year he will be eligible for first increment. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that while fixing the pay in the pay scale of Rs.2,000/-to Rs.3,200/-, the authorities have fixed it with effect from 01/07/1988, i.e. from the date of his appointment. The pay fixation as per 5^th Pay Commission was done on 01/01/2000 as well as the benefits were granted by considering the date of appointment as 01/07/1988. The pay fixation as per the revised 5^th Pay Commission was done with effect from 17/01/2004 as well as the benefits were granted by considering the date of appointment as 01/07/1988.

The Joint Director of Vocational Education and Training has passed an order dated 29/11/2013 granting higher pay scale to the petitioner from 01/07/1994, since the grant-in-aid was provided to the Institution with effect from 01/07/1994, by holding that the service of the petitioner should have been considered for the benefit of senior scale after 12 years from 01/07/1994 i.e. from 30/06/2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said issue is raised after 16 years of first order of pay fixation and the same is contrary to the settled position of law.

Learned Additional Government Pleader opposed the writ petition. It is submitted that the benefit of senior scale has rightly been granted to the petitioner after completion of 12 years from 01/07/1994 i.e. from 30/06/2006 since the Institution was given grant-in-aid with effect from 01/07/1994. It is therefore submitted by the learned Additional Government Pleader that the consequent recovery is justified as the benefit of the senior pay scale was wrongly given to the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment.

Heard learned counsel. We find substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner for the reasons set out hereafter. The petitioner has now retired from service with effect from 31/10/2025. By a communication dated 23/02/2016, 24/10/2019 and 18/01/2020 the Competent Authority had directed the college to recover the excess payment made to the petitioner from 01/07/1994 onward and submit revised proposal.

However, we find that the experience condition was relaxed by the Deputy Director of Vocational Education and Training, Mumbai while granting approval to the appointment of the petitioner. Once the condition regarding experience was relaxed, it was not open for the authorities to insist that the petitioner must possess the requisite experience of three years for the purpose of grant of senior pay scale. The said condition of three years experience would be applicable only if there is no relaxation granted. In the present case while appointing the petitioner, the petitioner’s appointment was approved with effect from 10/10/1988 by the Deputy Director of Vocational Education and Training, Mumbai relaxing the condition of requirement of prior experience. Therefore on the ground that the petitioner does not have experience, denying the petitioner grant of senior pay scale is clearly illegal.

The next point raised by the respondents is that for being eligible for grant of senior pay scale, the period of twelve years would be counted from the date on which the college starts receiving grant-in-aid. This issue is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Aurangabad Bench of this Court in Dattatraya Ramchandra Chaudhari and Others vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others^{11.! !}. Paragraph 3 of the said order reads thus :-

The twelve years service has thus to be computed from the date of entry into the cadre i.e. 29/07/1988 in the present case.

In such view of the matter, we find that the impugned order is unsustainable. The petitioner was rightly given the benefit of senior pay scale after completion of twelve years with effect from 29/07/1988 or 01/07/1988 as per the Rules. The benefits of revised pay scale should be granted to the petitioner with effect from 01/01/1996 as per the recommendations of the 7^th Pay Commission. Since we have quashed the impugned order and allowed the writ petition in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b), the question of effecting recovery does not arise.

The retiral benefits be calculated and paid to the petitioner accordingly. The proposal be submitted in terms of the aforesaid order within a period of six weeks from today. The pension proposal be processed expeditiously.

The writ petition is disposed of.