Facts: Prof. Vijay Nagori, a professor, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to step up his pay to be equivalent to that of his junior, Dr. A.S. Nathrekar, with effect from 01.09.2008, as per the Government Resolution dated 12.08.2009. The petitioner contended that Dr. Nathrekar, despite being junior and having obtained a Ph.D. later than him, was drawing a higher salary.
Procedural Posture: The case was filed as a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad. The court heard the petition and made the rule returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties.
Issue: Is the petitioner entitled to a step-up in pay under Notes 5 and 6 of the Government Resolution dated 12.08.2009, merely because his junior acquired a Ph.D. qualification after the implementation of the 6th Pay Commission, when the petitioner also holds a Ph.D. acquired earlier?
Holding: Yes, the petitioner is entitled to a step-up in pay to be at par with his junior, Dr. Nathrekar, because all relevant service conditions are identical, and discrimination based solely on the timing of Ph.D. acquisition is not permissible.
Reasoning: The Court relied on the principle of "equal pay for equal work," as enshrined in Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India and interpreted through Articles 14 and 16. The Court noted that Notes 5 and 6 of the Government Resolution address pay anomalies arising from pay revisions and promotions. The Court found that the petitioner, despite having an earlier Ph.D., was drawing less salary than his junior. The court held that discriminating against the petitioner solely because his junior acquired a Ph.D. after the 6th Pay Commission is not justified. The Court directed the respondents to step up the petitioner's pay, re-fix his salary, and pay the arrears with 8% interest if not paid within three months.