VINAYAK S O SHIVAJIRAO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Kaptan, learned counsel for the petitioner, mr. Fulzele, learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and mr. Agrawal, learned Advocate, holding for Mr. M. G. Bhangde, counsel for the respondent No. 3.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer on 23rd August, 1954 in the pay-scale of Rs. 175-400. In 1966 first revision in the pay-scale was effected and three-tier pay-scales were evolved, namely (1) for Lecturer - Rs. 300-600, (2) Lecturer (Senior Grade) -Rs. 400-800, and (3) Senior Lecturer - Rs. 700-1100. Senior Grade pay-scale was given to those Lecturers, who had completed 15 years' service with post graduate teaching experience. On 1st September, 1969, petitioner was placed in the pay-scale of Rs. 700-1100/

(3.) MR. Kaptan, learned counsel, states that in the year 1973, further revision of pay-scale was effected and though the petitioner was placed in the pay-scale of rs. 700-1600, but according to his placement, he was getting Rs. 1150-00. It is further submitted that in the year 1974, petitioner acquired Ph. D. , and was a recognized Guide for Ph. D. students. In 1981, petitioner reached the pay-scale of rs. 1600-00. In the year 1987, the Malhotra Committee was appointed and the recommendations made by the said Malhotra Committee in respect of revision of pay-scales were accepted with effect from 1st January, 1986. As per the Malhotra committee's recommendations, again three-tier pay-scales were evolved, namely (1) Lecturer Rs. 2200-4000, (2) Senior Lecturer Rs. 3000-5000, and (3)Lecturer (Selection Grade) Rs. 3700-5700. It is submitted that the petitioner, as per his entitlement, was placed in the pay-scale of Rs. 3700-00. It is further submitted that the petitioner received the maximum pay in view of his previous pay-scale, which is minimum in the new pay-scales recommended by the malhotra Committee and there is no further chance of the petitioner getting any higher pay-scale and, therefore, the petitioner was stagnated in the said pay-scale.