Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1549 (BOM)

Ratnakar K. Walzade v. State of Maharashtra

2025-12-11

ASHWIN D.BHOBE, RAVINDRA V.GHUGE

body2025
ORDER : 1. This matter is listed in the “Special Pension Board” category. 2. We have considered the strenuous submissions of the learned Advocate for the Petitioner and the learned AGP. Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 are formal parties, keeping in view that the impugned order dated 3 rd February, 2023 has been passed by Respondent No.3, which is a State authority. 3. For the sake of brevity, we are reproducing the following portion of the impugned order : 4. The State has opposed this Petition and supported the impugned order by filing an affidavit in reply dated 13 th December, 2024 through the Joint Director, Higher Education, Pune Region. The learned AGP has vehemently canvassed his submissions on the basis of the following portion of the affidavit in reply : xxxxxxxxxxxx I further say and submit that at the time of appointment in the aided College, the Management/College ought to adopt the procedure prescribed for appointment of Teachers i.e. to obtain No Objection Certificate from the office of Joint Director Higher Education, Pune Region, Pune, to obtain approval to the advertisement from the concerned University and accordingly to publish advertisement. Similarly, the Selection committee as per the norms of the University was required to be constituted and as per the norms prescribed, the appointment order was to be issued. Thus, the shifting of employees from unaided to aided unit/college is illegal and having no base at all. There is no any policy decision or statutory provision for transferring such employee from unaided unit to aided unit. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx In respect of Para No. 6 I say and submit that the contention raised by the petitioner that as per the entries in service book, the services of the petitioner from 8.7.1989 till date of retirement has been treated as regular is improper and unjustifiable. The record maintained in the service book is contrary to the Government policy and service rules and regulations. I say and submit that contention of the petitioner is that the services of the petitioner from 8.7.1989 till the date of his retirement has been treated as regular employee and the petitioner received CAS benefits considering the initial appointment date as 8.7.1989. To which I say and submit that the CAS benefits have been wrongly granted to the petitioner by counting initial date of appointment as 08.07.1989 in illegal manner. To which I say and submit that the CAS benefits have been wrongly granted to the petitioner by counting initial date of appointment as 08.07.1989 in illegal manner. The services rendered by the petitioner from 11.07.1989 to 06.01.1992, 07.01.1992 to the end of the academic year 1991-92, 20.07.1992 to 11.08.1992, 06.07.1993 to 30.06.1994 was purely on non-grant basis which cannot be counted for any service benefits. It is also submitted that the service rendered by the petitioner in aided college, also, cannot be considered for pension as he was transferred, from unaided to aided college, by the society i.e Respondent No 7 without following due procedure. Hence society i.e. Respondent No.7 is responsible for the grievance of the petitioner. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 5. From the record, we find as under : The above details are furnished by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner through a ready-reference chart tendered across the Bar, which is taken on record and marked as ‘X’ for identification. 6. In view of the above, it is apparent that the first period of service of the Petitioner from 8 th July, 1989 to 10 th August, 1992 was purely in an unaided College. The College Management is, therefore, liable to sustain the employee by payment of salary. The Petitioner was transferred by the Educational Institution, namely Gokhale Education Society, to Respondent No.6 College, which was a grant-in-aid Institution, on 11 th August, 1992. He continued with the said Institution until 19 th July, 1993. The Education Society again transferred him to Respondent No.5, unaided College for the period from 20 th July, 1993 to 30 th June, 1994. Thereafter, he was again transferred by the Institution to H.P.T. Arts and R.Y.K. Science College, Nashik, which was a grant-in-aid College. From 30 th June, 1994, he continued till 5 th June, 2009, putting in almost 16 years of service. He was then again transferred to Respondent No.6 grant-in-aid College on 6 th June, 2009 and he superannuated on 1 st February, 2021. Reliance is placed on a judgment delivered by this Court in the matter of Dr. (Mrs.) Rekha Ramchandra Rao vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. judgment dated 13 th November, 2025 in Writ Petition No. 3485 of 2009. 7. Reliance is placed on a judgment delivered by this Court in the matter of Dr. (Mrs.) Rekha Ramchandra Rao vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. judgment dated 13 th November, 2025 in Writ Petition No. 3485 of 2009. 7. It is, thus, obvious that, as the Petitioner was granted approval when he was transferred, primarily to the grant-in-aid College for the first time on 11 th August, 1992, he has thereafter continued practically for the entire period of his service in a grant- in-aid Institution, putting in almost 29 years, barring one year from 20 th July, 1993 to 30 th June, 1994 in an unaided College operated by the said Gokhale Education Society. The case of the Petitioner from 11 th August, 1992 till his superannuation on 1 st February, 2021 would be covered by the view taken by this Court in Dr. (Mrs.) Rekha Ramchandra Rao (Supra). The first period from July 1989 to August 1992, when the Petitioner started his career in an unaided College, would have to be discounted. 8. In view of the above, this Petition is partly allowed in terms of prayer clauses (b) and (c), which read as under : (b) By issuing the writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction in the like nature, the impugned communication dt. 3/2/2023 issued by the respondent no.3 may kindly be quashed and set aside. (c) By issuing the writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction in the like nature, the respondents may kindly be directed confer the retirement benefits of Pension to the petitioner as per the last pay certificate. 9. The effect of the above direction would be to reckon the service of the Petitioner from 11 th August, 1992 until his superannuation on 1 st February, 2021. He would, accordingly, be entitled to retirement and pensionary benefits.