Bombay High Court
MRS. SHUBHANGI LAXMAN GODSEversusSHRI. VIKAS CHANDRA RASTOGI, THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The communication dated 11 September 2019 is set aside and a fresh order must be passed after hearing the petitioner, with salary fixation per the 6th Pay Commission.
Summary
The petitioner, Shubhangi Laxman Godse, sought salary fixation in accordance with UGC guidelines and the 6th Pay Commission, alleging non‑compliance with a July 2, 2019 order of this Court. The respondents, a society and various officials, issued a communication on September 11, 2019 that the petitioner claimed did not address the court’s directions. The Court found that the communication was substantially non‑compliant and set it aside, directing the society to pass a fresh order after hearing the petitioner. It clarified that the petitioner’s pay must be fixed per the 6th Pay Commission with effect from January 1, 2006. The Court disposed of the contempt petition and listed the writ petition for further hearing.
Issues considered
- Whether the communication dated 11 September 2019 complied with the directions of the Court dated 2 July 2019.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to salary fixation under the UGC guidelines and the 6th Pay Commission.
- Whether the respondents are in contempt for failing to comply with the Court’s order.
Subjects
- contempt of court
- salary fixation
- UGC guidelines
- 6th Pay Commission
- writ petition
- court order compliance
- academic staff remuneration
Judgment
5-CP-21-2020.doc
Digitally
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
signed by
RUPALI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
RUPALI RAJESH
RAJESH WAKODIKAR
WAKODIKAR Date:
2026.09.11 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 21 OF 2020
14:15:49
+0530 WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3196 OF 2022
Shubhangi Laxman Godse .....Petitioner
Versus
Vikas Chandra Rastogi, The Principal Secretary &
Ors. .....Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 16291 OF 2023
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 3196 OF 2022
The Principal Shri. Shivaji Maratha Societies
Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya & Anr. .....Applicant
Versus
Shubhangi Laxman Godse
.....Respondents
.....
Mr. Sushant Prabhune, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Prathamesh Bhargude for the Respondent Nos.5 and 6 in
WP/3196/2022 & Respondent Nos. 7 & 8 in CP/21/2020.
Mr. Rahul Kate for the Respondent Nos.10 to 17 in CP/21/2020.
Mr. Rajendra Anbhule for the Respondent No.6.
Smt. V.S.Nimbalkar, A.G.P for the Respondent-State.
..…
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK &
SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 10th SEPTEMBER 2026
Wakodikar 1/5
5-CP-21-2020.doc
P.C.:-
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Counsel appearing for the respondent-society.
2. The order of which breach is alleged is dated 2nd July, 2019 in
WP/4074/2016 which reads as under :
“1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. It is not in dispute that salary to the teaching staff, even by
non aided institutions but which were affiliated to recognize
Universities, had to be in terms of the Office Memorandum
dated 12 August 2009. Highlighting that the Office
Memorandum has a retrospective operation from 1 January
2006, the salary of the teachers had to be fixed either in pay-
band of Rs. 15,600-39,100 or pay-band Rs. 37,400-67,000 and
appropriate Academic Grade Pay (AGP) varied with reference
to year of service completed and educational qualifications of
the teacher concerned. The norms thereof had been prescribed
by University Grants Commission (UGC).
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is entitled to receive
salary in the pay-band of Rs. 15,000- 39,100 with AGP of Rs.
6000/- with effect from 14 August 2006 and AGP of Rs. 7000/-
with effect from 14 August 2011. The reply filed by the
respondents is wishy-washy and only pleads that the AGP
applicable would be with reference to the number of years
service rendered and educational qualifications of the
petitioner.
4. The real issue not being highlighted in the pleadings. We
dispose of the petition directing the respondent No. 9 to
convey to the petitioner the reason for granting a particular
AGP to the petitioner. The reason would be with reference to
Wakodikar 2/5
5-CP-21-2020.doc
the UGC guide-lines. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the
reason given, the petitioner would be entitled to challenge the
same by way of fresh writ petition.
5. The direction issued to respondent No. 9 shall be complied
with within six weeks.”
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order
passed by this Court has not been complied with in letter and spirit.
It is submitted that though the communication / addressed by the
society to the petitioner dated 11th September 2019, which the
society says, is in response to the directions issued by this Court, the
reply does not address the main issue involved.
4. Learned Counsel for the society invited our attention to the
communication dated 9th August, 2019 addressed to the petitioner
through the Principal, Shri.Shivaji Maratha Society, Adhyapak
Mahavidhyalaya, Pune. The petitioner was called for a hearing.
However, it is the stand of the petitioner that there are no specific
directions issued by this Court in the order dated 2 nd July, 2019 about
the hearing, and hence the petitioner did not participate in the said
hearing.
5. Though we find that the appropriate course for the petitioner is
Wakodikar 3/5
5-CP-21-2020.doc
to challenge the communication / letter dated 11 th September, 2019
on merits as there has been a substantial compliance with the
directions of this Court, the learned Counsel for the society states
that if the petitioner appears before the Principal on 22 nd September,
2026 at 3:00 PM, a fresh order would be passed after giving a proper
opportunity to the petitioner and appreciating the concern of the
petitioner and in terms of the directions which have been issued by
this Court on 2nd July, 2019.
6. Learned Counsel for the society, therefore, has no objection for
the communication / letter dated 11th September, 2019 being set
aside.
7. Accordingly, the communication / letter dated 11 th September,
2019 is set aside. The society to pass a fresh order in terms of the
order dated 2nd July, 2019 passed by this Court after hearing the
petitioner.
8. It is clarified that after taking into consideration the stand of
the petitioner, the pay fixation of the petitioner shall be done in
terms of the 6th Pay Commission entitlement with effect from 1 st
Wakodikar 4/5
5-CP-21-2020.doc
January, 2006.
9. All contentions of the parties are kept open for compliance in
accordance with the directions issued by this Court.
10. A decision be taken within a period of six weeks from 22 nd
September, 2026. The pay fixation exercise shall be done within the
aforesaid period.
11. With the aforesaid directions, Contempt Petition No. 21 of
2020 is disposed of.
12. Writ petition be listed on 29th October, 2026.
(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
Wakodikar 5/5
Checking your session…