1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally, by the consent of the parties.
2. The Petitioner joined service as an Assistant Professor, on 14th August, 1982. As per the terms and conditions of service, he was slated to superannuate at the age of 60 years, on 31st July, 2014. A circular dated 9th October, 2014 was issued by Respondent No.3, thereby, extending the age of Pallavi Wargaonkar, PS MAHENDRA WARGAONKAR.. 2.. 31-WP-1273-2020 (C) superannuation of such professors from 60 years to 62 years. This was made applicable to those working in educational institutions, under the supervision and control of Respondent No.5. Accordingly, the Petitioner was granted extension for two years, w.e.f. 1st August, 2014 until 31st July, 2016. He received the order of extension, dated 9th October, 2014 and joined employment on 10th October, 2014. He superannuated on 31st July, 2016.
3. The contention raised in this Petition is that the Petitioner has offered himself for work. Since the employer was awaiting the extension order, he could not join duties till 9th October, 2014. The moment such an order was passed, he returned for duties on 10th October, 2014. Therefore, the Petitioner prays for the unpaid salary from 1st August, 2014 till 9th October, 2014 which is the period during which he could not work.
4. The learned AGP representing the State has vehemently opposed this Petition on the ground that the principle ‘No work-no wages’ can be made applicable to the case of the Pallavi Wargaonkar, PS.. 3.. 31-WP-1273-2020 (C) Petitioner. He further submits on the basis of the record that the circular was indeed issued and it was clearly on the basis of the such circular that the Petitioner was permitted to continue in service until 31st July, 2016.
5. The Petitioner places reliance on the judgment delivered by this Court [Coram: B.R. Gavai (As His Lordship then was) and Riyaz I. Chagla, JJ.] dated 3rd July, 2016 in Writ Petition No.4962 of 2016, filed by Laxman Ragho Raundal Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., wherein this Court has held in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 as under:-
“2. The Petitioners in the three Petitions were recruited by Respondent No.2 (K.R.T. Arts, B.H. Commerce and A.M. Science College at Nashik) in Writ Petitions Nos. 4962 and 4963 of 2016 and (Maharaj Shivajirao Gaekwad Arts, Science and Commerce College, at Nashik) in Writ Petition No. 4591 of 2016 as Associate Professors. The Petitioners in the three Petitions were due to retire from services on the attainment of age of 60 years and upon their retirement the Respondent No.2 had made a representation to Respondent No.4 (The Deputy Secretary, Academic Branch, Pune University, Pune, in all the three Petitions) proposing to grant extension of superannuation age of the Petitioners from 60 years to 62 years. By circular dated 27th September 2012 (in Writ Petition No. 4962 of 2016) and circular dated 16th August 2012 (in Writ Petitions Nos. 4963 of 2016
Pallavi Wargaonkar, PS.. 4.. 31-WP-1273-2020 (C) and 4591 of 2016), the Respondent No.3 (the Higher and Technical Education department through its Executive Officer, Maharashtra, Mumbai) extended the superannuation age of professors working in educational institution under the control and supervision of the Respondent No.5 (The Divisional Joint Director, Higher Education, Pune) University, Pune from 60 years to 62 years. The superannuation age of the Petitioners were accordingly extended from 60 years to 62 years. The Petitioners had resumed services upon the circular being issued but had not been paid remuneration for the period when the Petitioners had retired till the issuance of the circular. Respondent No.3 despite issuing circular dated 30th December 2012 for extension of superannuation age, the Respondent No.1 had not paid dues of the Petitioners for the said period. The Petitioners have in their respective Petitions sought appropriate directions from the Court to pay the Petitioners their unpaid salary for the said period of three months.
3. The counsel for the Petitioners has submitted that the issue involved in the three Petitions is no longer res integra, in view of the judgment of this Court (Bench at Aurangabad) in the case of Snehal Arun Borse Vs. the State of Maharashtra & Ors. The said judgment had followed the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Dayanand Chakrawarti & Ors. and held that the Petitioners are entitled for the salary for the period for which he was not allowed to work and that the Respondent in that case was directed to pay salary to the Petitioners for the extended period of service for which he was not allowed to work, expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months from the date of the order. The Respondents were also directed to calculate pensionary benefits considering the Pallavi Wargaonkar, PS.. 5.. 31-WP-1273-2020 (C) Petitioners to be in continuous services till the extended date of retirement including arrears for which the Petitioner may be entitled due to extended date of the retirement. The Writ Petition was accordingly disposed of.
4. We are of the considered view that the judgment of this Court at Aurangabad Bench referred above squarely applies and the present Petition will have to be allowed on the following terms: O R D E R a) It is held and declared that Petitioner is entitled for salary for the period for which they were not allowed to work. Respondent No.2 College which is duly served is directed to submit the salary bills of the Petitioner for the period for which they were not allowed to work to Respondent No.5 within a period of four weeks from today. On receipt of such bills, the Respondent No.5 shall process the same and make payment to the Petitioner within a period of eight weeks thereafter. b) The Respondents shall calculate pensionary benefits considering the Petitioner to be in continuous service till the extended date of retirement including arrears which the Petitioner may be entitled due to extended date of retirement. c) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No costs.” [EMPHASIS SUPPLIED]
6. In view of the above, since this Court has already taken a view in identical set of facts, we are inclined to grant the Pallavi Wargaonkar, PS.. 6.. 31-WP-1273-2020 (C) unpaid salary to the Petitioner for the period 1st August, 2014 till 9th October, 2014. The learned AGP strenuously opposes grant of interest on the unpaid salary for the reason that in Laxman Ragho Raundal (supra), this Court has not granted interest, as also for the reason that the Petitioner has approached this Court belatedly. We find that the learned AGP is justified in opposing the grant of interest. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits on instructions that the Petitioner would not claim interest.
7. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is partly allowed. The Petitioner is held entitled for the unpaid salary for the period 1st August, 2014 to 9th October, 2014, without interest. Let the said amount be paid to the Petitioner within a period of 90 days from today.
8. Needless to state, if the Model Code of Conduct is introduced by the State Government, the same shall not be an impediment for the implementation of this order.
9. Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms. (M.M. SATHAYE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) Pallavi Wargaonkar, PS