Civil Appeal Nos.3180-3182 of 2016 take exception to the common judgment and order dated 17 April 2007 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in three separate writ petitions filed by the appellants. According to the case of the lecturers, at the relevant time, they fulfilled the qualifications laid down by the University of Mumbai for appointment to the post of lecturer. The resolution provided that the petitioners should forward a proposal for approving their appointment to the 1 respondent – University and the 1 respondent – University shall approve the appointment of these three lecturers with retrospective effect from the year 1998. The High Court noted that even the appellants agreed that the said three lecturers were duly qualified in terms of the Regulations existing at the time of their appointment and that the 3 respondent – the Medical Council of India never raised any objection to their appointments till the date the Medical College got affiliated to the 1 respondent – University. If in spite of that the Medical Council does not recognise or consider the same, it is for the petitioners to approach this court to seek appropriate relief.” Notice in this case was issued by this Court on 15 January 2008.
He submitted that during the inspection by the 3 respondent – the Medical Council of India, the appointment of these three lecturers was not recognised. Whether they had secured any employment either on contract or otherwise after 21.06.2004; 2.
They shall also to disclose the emoluments received by them during the course of their employment either on contract or otherwise, if any; and 4. In paragraph 6 of the impugned judgment and order of the High Court, it is clearly recorded that the appellants agreed that the said three lecturers were duly qualified in terms of the Rules existing at the time of their respective appointments and that the 3 respondent – the Medical Council of India permitted them to do the teaching job till the Medical College was affiliated to the 1 respondent – University in the year 1998.
Her contention is that by the time she would have attained the age of superannuation, her salary would have been approximately Rs.1,80,000/- per month. Annexure-A to the said affidavit discloses that at the time of termination, her monthly salary was Rs.16,474/- and at the time of her superannuation, her salary would have been Rs.43,566/-.
As per Annexure-A to the said affidavit, at the time of her termination, her monthly salary was Rs.16,142/- and at the age of superannuation, her salary would have been Rs.1,01,000/- per month. The impugned judgment is based on a concession by the appellants that on the date of the appointment, the said three lecturers were qualified. Her average annual salary is Rs.3,60,000/- and therefore, the average salary for three years will be Rs.10,80,000/- which figure can be rounded off to Rs.11,00,000/-.
We propose to grant her compensation equivalent to the average salary of one year which comes to Rs.7,02,000/- which can be rounded off to Rs.7,10,000/-.
Though we cannot find fault with the impugned judgment and order, as far as the reinstatement of the said three lecturers is concerned, we mould the relief by directing the appellants to pay the following compensation amounts in lieu of reinstatement to the said three lecturers: Sl. …………………….
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/grant-of-promotional-pay-scale-to-ayurvedic-medical-officers/
J.
Case Title: K.J.SOMAIYA MEDICAL COL. Vs. MAHARASHTRA UNIV.OF HEALTH SC.. (2023 INSC 563)
Case Number: C.A. No.-003180-003182 / 2016
