Writ Petition No.606 of 1998. Case: Sanjay Namdeorao Puriji Vs State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary, Public Health Department & Ors.. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition No.606 of 1998 |
| Counsel | Anand Parchure, N Adgaokar |
| Judges | C L Pangarkar, J. |
| Issue | Maharashtra Civil Services (Pay) Rules, 1981 - Rules 11.2, 57 |
| Citation | 2008 (6) MahLJ 685 |
| Judgement Date | August 20, 2008 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
This Writ Petition is filed against the order passed by theAdministrative Tribunal Nagpur whereby it rejected the application ofthe petitioner for proper fixation of his pay on his being appointed to anew post.
The petitioner is a Medical Graduate and was appointed as aLecturer in the Government Medical College initially in the year 1981.He continued to work as Lecturer but was not being promoted to thepost of Associate Professor. He had to file writ petition in the HighCourt. The petition was allowed in the year 1989. Afterrepresentations were made the petitioner was granted pay scale of Rs.3700-5700 for the post of Associate Professor In the year 1989Maharashtra Public Service Commission (for short MPSC) publishedan advertisement for filling the post of Junior Physician. Thepetitioner applied for the said post. He was selected by the MPSC andwas duly appointed to the said post. The pay scale of this new post(Junior Physician) was Rs. 3000-100-4500. The petitioner contendsthat advertisement issued by the MPSC specifically says that pay ofthose already in the Government service would be protected. Thepetitioner's grievance is that inspite of this, his pay is fixed at thelowest i.e. at Rs.3000/- per month in the new post of Junior Physician.
He contends that as Associate Professor he was drawing basic pay ofRs.3950/- and this pay which he was drawing in the old scale and postshould be protected.
Respondents contention is that the pay is properly fixed andthe Administrative Tribunal has considered all aspects and has rightlyrejected the application of the petitioner.
We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner andthe respondents.
It is observed by the Tribunal that the case of the petitionerdoes not fall under Rule 11.2 or 11.3 of Maharashtra Civil ServicesRules nor does it fall under Rule 57 of the Maharashtra Civil Services(Pay) Rules 1981. Holding so the application of the petitioner wasrejected. At Annexure II to the petition there is a copy of theinstructions issued to the candidates applying for the said post. Para 5of these Instructions say that pay of those candidates who are alreadyin the service of the Government of Maharashtra shall be protectedunder Rule 57, and their pay shall be fixed accordingly. This is theinformation supplied to the candidates by the Maharashtra PublicService Commission. It is mainly on account of this assurance ofMPSC, that the petitioner's submission is that he had applied for...
To continue reading
Request your trial