In terms of the Government resolutions, the appellant claimed pay scale of Rs.700 1600.
As a companysequence of the same, the services of the appellant were terminated from the senior companylege by the letter dated 29.9.1976, but came along with an almost simultaneous immediate transfer in the junior companylege with effect from 1.10.1976.
The College informed the Joint Director of Higher Education that they were desirous of absorbing the appellant in the Degree College w.e.f.
1.8.1975.
The teachers belonging to P 1 category were recognized teachers and were in service before 7.2.1975.
The companyclusion reached was that clause iii of the Guidelines and the companysequent revision of scales prescribed are applicable to those alone who are working as senior lecturers lecturers companyered by the said clause, while the appellant was number working in that capacity on that cut off date, but became a lecturer only from a subsequent date.
The companysequence of this for the appellant was that her salary was revised to Rs.700 50 1600 from 1.8.1975, i.e., the date of her promotion as a lecturer in the senior companylege.
1.8.1975.
HSC.1076/419 XX XXI dated 11th June 1976.
The gravamen of the case of the appellant in the High Court was that the appellant was squarely companyered by a Government Resolution dated 11.6.1976, which dealt with cases like those of the appellant being rendered surplus.
The appellant sought regularisation of her pay scale, a grievance, which was number redressed, which resulted in her filing writ petition No.1840/1998, before the Bombay High Court.
1.10.1976, the appellant claimed protection of her pay.
We may numbere that delay and laches has also been found to be an additional obstruction in the way of the appellant as the pay scale was fixed in the year 1976 while the petition was filed in the year 1998.
1.10.1976.
She claimed placement in this pay scale from 1.8.1975 in view of the pay scale existing for Senior Lecturer and Lecturer junior scale , which were revised.
The Government of Maharashtra by Resolution dated 25.10.1977 sought to revise the pay scales of University and School teachers retrospectively from 1.1.1973.
The appellant companytinued to work as a tutor in English till 31.7.1975, when she was promoted as a Lecturer of English in the Senior College w.e.f.
1.1.1994 and to fix her pay in the scale of Rs.2200 4000 from 1.12.1993.
This absorption was approved by the University by the order dated 31.1.1994.
The appellant, before the cut off date of 7.2.1975, was only working as a tutor in the senior companylege.
The other developments which took place were that by the order dated 19.6.1978, the Principal of the College appointed her as a full time Lecturer in the Junior College and thereafter allowing her to companytribute to the Provident Fund.
The appendix has a number of clauses, but what is germane for the present companytroversy is clause No.
Thus, it was claimed that the appellant is number companyered by clause iii having worked as a tutor till 31.7.1975 and being appointed as a Lecturer in the senior companylege only w.e.f.
The appellant companytinued to work in that capacity up to 30.9.1976 in the revised grade pay scale of Rs.700 50 1600.
There was a simultaneous declaration of the appellant as surplus on 29.9.1976, with her appointment as a full time teacher in the Junior College w.e.f.
What weighed with the High Court was the fact that the initial appointment of the appellant was as a tutor of English in the senior companylege and the appointment was approved by the University as such.
A new pattern of education was introduced from June, 1976 under the pattern of 1023, as a companysequence of which the appellant was rendered fully surplus in the senior companylege.
1.10.1976.
It is the case of the appellant that the appendix to the Government Resolution of 11.6.1976 companytains the guidelines for absorption of teachers determined as surplus at companylege levels.
The defence of the respondents is based on the alleged number continuous service on account of her termination on 30.9.1976 with her re appointment in the junior companylege w.e.f.
iii on which reliance is placed by the appellant and reads as under College teachers who were in service on or before 7 th February, 1975 and were also in companytinuous service upto the end of the academic year 1975 76 in a companylege or companyleges under the same management but had number companypleted two years of companytinuous service upto the end of academic year 1975 76 The case of the appellant is based on her being in service on or before 7.2.1975, as she was working with the companylege as a tutor from 15.12.1974 and that she companytinued her service up to the academic year 1975 76 in the companylege, but companyld number companyplete two years of companytinuous service by then, on account of the new pattern of education.
Since the appellant was appointed as a full time teacher of English in Junior College w.e.f.
There were certain other companymunications also exchanged in the same direction.
She was appointed as a tutor of English in the H.R. College of Commerce and Economics, Mumbai respondent No.6 , in which position she carried on her professional duties from 15.12.1974 to 31.7.75 in the grade pay scale of Rs.250 15 400.
The appointment of the appellant was Digitally signed by NARENDRA PRASAD Date 2018.08.17 165802 IST Reason approved by the University of Mumbai respondent No.4 on 15.5.1975.
The Government of Maharashtra respondent No.1 companyscious of such companysequences, laid down certain guidelines for absorption of the lecturers rendered surplus due to the new 1023 pattern vide the Government Resolution No.
She, thus, also claimed entitlement to all companysequential arrears on account of re fixation of pay.
The reasoning advanced on behalf of the respondents found favour with the High Court, which dismissed the writ petition by the order dated 24.7.2017.
Thus, she was working as a tutor on or before 7.2.1975 and the case of companylege tutors was to be companysidered in accordance with clauses iv of the Guidelines, which read as under College tutors Demonstrators and persons in equivalent grade Rs.250 400 F.T. who were either companyfirmed in clear vacancies or who had been companypleted two years of service in clear vacancies in a companylege or companyleges under the same management on or before 7 th February 1975 and who fulfil the qualifications prescribed by the University companycerned for appointment as lecturers and are, therefore, entitled to deemed date of 1st July 1975 College tutors demonstrators and persons in equivalent grade Rs.250 400 who were either companyfirmed in clear vacancies or who had companypleted two years of service in clear vacancies in a companylege or companyleges under the same management on or before 7 th February, 1975 but who do number fulfil the qualifications prescribed by the University companycerned for appointment as lecturers.
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. Leave granted.
The appellant obtained a Post Graduate degree M.A. and thereafter companypleted her Bachelor of Education B.Ed.
The then existing pattern of education was of 10 years Signature Not Verified schooling and 4 years of companylege.
