KAUTIKRAO TOTARAM THALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, prays for following substantial reliefs by issuing writ of mandamus against the respondents No. 1 to 4 :

(2.) THE petitioner, on completion of his M. A. (Marathi) degree in 1967, came to be appointed as a Lecturer under Shri Chhatrapati Shivaji College, Omerga and he continued there till 1971. He then joined Deogiri college at Aurangabad run by the respondent No. 4 society. He served as Head of the Department of the said college till 8th August, 1974 and was thereafter appointed as Principal of Muktanand College, Gangapur, run by the respondent No. 4, vide order dated 5th August, 1974. For a short duration in between, he was posted as Officer of the respondent No. 4 Society at Aurangabad. On 5th August, 1991, he came to be appointed as Principal of Arts and Commerce College at Kille Dharur in Beed District by the respondent No. 4. When he approached this Court, he was working in the same post and has retired from service on reaching the age of superannuation on 21-12-2001.

(3.) THE petitioner relies upon the Resolution dated 27th February, 1985 issued by the Government of Maharashtra and claims that he ought to have been transferred as a Principal by the respondent No. 4 society to any of its colleges which were having the strength of 1000 students or more so that he could have been placed in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-150-5700-200-6300/ -. The placement in such a pay scale was based on seniority and the respondent No. 4, at the relevant time, was running 9 colleges, out of which 7 were higher strength students colleges. Considering this position, he ought to have been placed, at any time, in one of these 7 colleges so that he could have got benefit of the said higher pay scale as against the pay scale of Rs. 3700-125-4950-150-5700/-, which he was drawing at the relevant time. He submitted a representation to this effect on 6-12-1989 as well as on 11-4-1991. As the respondent No. 4 Management did not consider his representation favourably, he approached this Court.