Bombay High Court Allows Teacher's Pay Fixation Revision Petition Following Precedent. Pay revision date directed to be 1st July 2000 instead of 1st March 2000, with arrears to be paid within three months.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 42
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Riyaz Ahmed Mustafa Walsangkar, a teacher working with Zilla Parishad, Solapur, filed a writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash an order dated 8th April 2003 and to direct the respondents to revise his pay fixation as per the option exercised by him, with the date of pay fixation treated as 1st July 2000 instead of 1st March 2000. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the question involved was similar to that in Writ Petition No.1203 of 2004, which had been disposed of by a Division Bench order dated 25th June 2004. The respondents' counsel agreed that this petition could be disposed of in terms of that order. The court perused the petition, annexures (particularly Exhibit 'D'), and the earlier order. The earlier order had allowed the petition in that case, directing the respondents to treat the date of pay fixation as 1st July 2000 and to revise the pay accordingly. Following that precedent, the court allowed the present petition in the same terms, directing the respondents to treat the date of pay fixation as 1st July 2000 and to revise the petitioner's pay accordingly. The court also directed that the arrears of salary be paid to the petitioner within three months. The rule was made absolute accordingly.

Headnote

A) Service Law - Pay Fixation - Revision of Pay - Option Exercise - The petitioner, a teacher, sought revision of pay fixation with effect from 1st July 2000 instead of 1st March 2000, relying on an earlier Division Bench order in a similar matter. The court, after perusing the petition and the earlier order, allowed the petition in the same terms, directing the respondents to treat the date of pay fixation as 1st July 2000 and to revise the pay accordingly. (Paras 1-4)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the petitioner's pay fixation should be revised with effect from 1st July 2000 instead of 1st March 2000, in terms of the order passed in a similar writ petition.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the writ petition in terms of the order dated 25th June 2004 in Writ Petition No.1203 of 2004. The respondents were directed to treat the date of pay fixation as 1st July 2000 and to revise the petitioner's pay accordingly. Arrears of salary to be paid within three months. Rule made absolute.

Law Points

  • Pay fixation
  • Option exercise
  • Revision of pay
  • Date of effect
  • Precedent
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2005 LawText (BOM) (04) 220

Writ Petition No.1195 of 2004

2005-04-27

S.B. Mhase, D.B. Bhosale

Mr S.G. Kudle (for petitioner), Mr C.R. Sonawane (AGP for respondent nos 1 and 3), Mr I.M. Khairdi (for respondent no.4)

Riyaz Ahmed Mustafa Walsangkar

The Deputy Director of Education, Pune Division, Pune and ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition seeking quashing of order dated 8th April 2003 and direction for revision of pay fixation.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 8th April 2003 and direction to respondents to revise pay fixation with effect from 1st July 2000 instead of 1st March 2000.

Filing Reason

The petitioner's pay fixation was not revised as per the option exercised by him, and the date of pay fixation was 1st March 2000 instead of 1st July 2000.

Previous Decisions

An order dated 25th June 2004 in Writ Petition No.1203 of 2004 by a Division Bench (A.P. Shah, Acting C.J. & S.U. Kamdar, J.) disposed of a similar matter.

Issues

Whether the petitioner's pay fixation should be revised with effect from 1st July 2000 instead of 1st March 2000.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner's counsel submitted that the question involved was similar to that in Writ Petition No.1203 of 2004 and could be disposed of in terms of the order dated 25th June 2004. Respondents' counsel agreed that the petition could be disposed of in terms of the earlier order.

Ratio Decidendi

Where the facts and legal issues in a writ petition are identical to those in a previously decided petition, the court may dispose of the petition in the same terms, following the precedent set in the earlier case.

Judgment Excerpts

We perused the writ petition as also the annexures and in particular Exhibit 'D' to the petition. We also perused the order dated 25.6.2004 disposing of writ petition no.1203 of 2004.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.1195 of 2004 before the Bombay High Court. The court issued rule and heard the matter finally by consent. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the matter was similar to Writ Petition No.1203 of 2004, which had been disposed of on 25th June 2004. The respondents agreed. The court perused the earlier order and disposed of the petition in the same terms.

Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Petitioner's Writ Petition Challenging Order Granting Leave to Lead Secondary Evidence. Court Holds That Leave to Lead Secondary Evidence Is Unnecessary and Misconceived Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Teacher's Pay Fixation Revision Petition Following Precedent. Pay revision date directed to be 1st July 2000 instead of 1st March 2000, with arrears to be paid within three months.