IMPORTANT POINT
Artificial breaks of one day in service deprecated.

JUDGMENT

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant obtained a Post Graduate degree (M.A.) and thereafter completed her Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.). 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 then existing pattern of education was of 10 years schooling and 4 years of college. The appointment of the appellant was approved by the University of Mumbai (respondent No.4) on 15.5.1975.

3. The appellant continued 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. 1.8.1975. The appellant continued to work in that capacity up to 30.9.1976 in the revised grade pay-scale of Rs.700-50-1600.

4. A new pattern of education was introduced from June, 1976 under the pattern of 10+2+3, as a consequence of which the appellant was rendered fully surplus in the senior college. The Government of Maharashtra (respondent No.1) conscious of such consequences, laid down certain guidelines for absorption of the lecturers rendered surplus due to the new 10+2+3 pattern vide the Government Resolution No. HSC.1076/419-XX-XXI dated 11th June 1976. It is in view of these guidelines that the appellant was appointed as a full time teacher in English now in the junior college w.e.f. 1.10.1976, in the pay-scale of Rs.500-900 instead of Rs.700-50-1600.

5. It is on 3.6.1977 that the appellant took up the issue of her reappointment as a full time lecturer in college in view of the fact that she had been working for two years with respondent No.6 College and in response thereto on 14.6.1977, the Principal of the College informed the appellant that the college was appointing her as a full time lecturer of English in the junior college and that her salary would remain the same.

6. 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 consequence 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 college.

7. 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 contribute to the Provident Fund. The College informed the Joint Director of Higher Education that they were desirous of absorbing the appellant in the Degree College w.e.f. 1.1.1994 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. There were certain other communications also exchanged in the same direction.

8. The appellant sought regularisation of her pay-scale, a grievance, which was not redressed, which resulted in her filing writ petition No.1840/1998, before the Bombay High Court. The gravamen of the case of the appellant in the High Court was that the appellant was squarely covered by a Government Resolution dated 11.6.1976, which dealt with cases like those of the appellant being rendered surplus. Since the appellant was appointed as a full time teacher of English in Junior College w.e.f. 1.10.1976, the appellant claimed protection of her pay.

9. It is the case of the appellant that the appendix to the Government Resolution of 11.6.1976 contains the guidelines for absorption of teachers determined as surplus at college levels. The appendix has a number of clauses, but what is germane for the present controversy is clause No.(iii) on which reliance is placed by the appellant and reads as under:

“(iii) College teachers who were in service on or before 7th February, 1975 and were also in continuous service upto the end of the academic year 1975-76 in a college or colleges under the sam