Bombay High Court
Shankar S/O Punjabrao Raut And Others vs State Of Maha., Thr. Principal ... on 9 September, 2025
Author: M.S. Jawalkar
Bench: M.S. Jawalkar
2025:BHC-NAG:8860-DB
J-WP No.3967.2022.odt 1/15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3967 OF 2022
1) Shankar S/o. Punjabrao Raut,
Aged about 58 years, Occ.-Superannuated.
2) Dnyaneshwar S/o. Rambhauji Thakre,
Aged about 55 years, Occ.-Service,
3) Pramod S/o. Anandrao Ingale,
Aged about 43 years, Occ.- Service,
All Petitioners are Residents of
Amravati, Tq. and Distt.Amravati. ....PETITIONERS
...VERSUS...
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Principal Secretary,
Higher and Technical Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Director of High Education,
Sate of Maharashtra, Pune.
3. The Joint Director of Higher Education,
Amravati.
4. Shri Shivaji College of Education,
Amravati, through its Principal,
Having its office at Amravati,
Tq. and Distt. Amravati. ...RESPONDENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Tejas S. Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri A. S. Fulzele, Addl.G.P. for the respondents.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J-WP No.3967.2022.odt 2/15
CORAM : SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR AND
PRAVIN S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 20/08/2025
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 09/09/2025
JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)
Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel appearing for both the parties.
2. The petitioners by this petition are praying for their placement in proper Pay Scales with benefits from the date of appointment at par with the teaching staff which was granted under order dated 08.01.2021 and for extension of Employees' Pension Scheme and GPF by reckoning their service from the date of appointment.
3. The brief facts of the case are as under :
On 31.10.1994, Respondent No.4-College after following due process of law, advertised one Junior Clerk and two Peon posts. The petitioner No.1 applied for the post of Junior Clerk and Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 applied for the post of Peon. The Respondent No.4 after scrutinizing the applications of Petitioners called them for personal interview. They J-WP No.3967.2022.odt 3/15 attended the interview on 22.12.1994, and were appointed on 30.12.1994. The Petitioners joined their duties on 31.12.1994.
The Petitioner No.1 was later promoted as 'Senior Clerk' on 27.02.2009.
4. By Government Resolution dated 29.06.2009, the State Government sanctioned grant-in-aid for the B.P.E. (3 years) course at Respondent No.4-College. Thereafter, on 14.02.2012, the Joint Director of Sports and Physical Education granted approval to the Petitioners' appointments and fixed their Pay Scales. The Petitioners along with the teaching staff, preferred a Writ Petition No.3523/2015 seeking proper pay scales, pensionary benefits, and extension of Employees' Pension Scheme & GPF. This Court, by order dated 15.06.2016, disposed of the Petition directing the Petitioners to make representation to Respondent No.2, pointing out that the Petitioners were never working on contract basis within a period of three weeks and Respondent No.2 was directed to decide the same within a period of next four week, which was accordingly made by the Petitioners, but came to be rejected on 19.05.2017 by the Respondent No.2.
J-WP No.3967.2022.odt 4/15
5. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioners once again approached before this Court by preferring a Writ Petition No.7737/2017. This Court vide its Judgment dated 23/07/2019, permitted them to withdraw the Petition with liberty to avail other remedies, whereas the teaching staff's Petition was allowed and granted them higher pay scales and pensionary benefits under the Employees' Pension Scheme and G.P.F. The said judgment was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Diary) No.5956/2020 on 27/05/2020. Despite this, by order dated 08.01.2021, Respondent No.3 extended the benefits to the teaching staff, but denied similar relief to the petitioners (non-teaching staff). The Petitioners thereafter issued a legal notice dated 04.02.2021 calling upon Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to extend the same benefits. On 03.08.2021, Respondent No.3 also addressed communication to Respondent No.2 pointing out the litigation history and recommending action. However, no steps have been taken till date.
6. The Petitioners emphasize that their appointments were made after due process of law, duly approved by the J-WP No.3967.2022.odt 5/15 Competent Authority, and therefore they are entitled to equal treatment and benefits as granted to the teaching staff. Having no alternative efficacious remedy, they are constrained to approach this Court.
7. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners relied on the Judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.3160/2021 (Hemant Jagannath Vidwansa Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others), dated 28/04/2022.
8. The Respondents submitted that The Petitioners were working on temporary basis on non-grant basis run by Respondent No.4. Since the Petitioners' services were recognized only from 01.06.2009, when the college came under grant-in-aid, therefore the Petitioners fall under DCPS/NPS as per Government Resolution dated 01.11.2005, and their earlier service from 1994 cannot be counted for pay or pensionery benefits. It is further submitted that in Writ Petition No. 7737/2017, (Dr.Premsingh S/o Shivpalsingh Sayar and others v. The State of Maharashtra and others ), this Court distinguished teaching staff from the Petitioners due to J-WP No.3967.2022.odt 6/15 different service conditions and denied relief. A Government Resolutions dated 12.08.1999, 29.06.2009, 01.11.2005, and the pay fixation order of 14.02.2012, clearly exclude non- grant service from pension or pay protection. Hence, the Petitioners' claims are meritless and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
9. Heard both the parties at length. Perused the documents placed on record and considered the citations relied on by both the parties.
10. The petitioners herein are non-teaching staff claiming relief for placement in proper pay scale considering their length of service from the respective date of appointments and to grant them similar benefits granted to the teaching staff of the respondent No.4-College vide order dated 08/01/2021 issued by the respondent No.3-Joint Director of Education, Amravati Division, Amravati. The petitioners are also claiming for extension of benefits of employees' old pension scheme and GPF to them by considering their date of appointments and not the date on J-WP No.3967.2022.odt 7/15 which respondent No.4-College is brought on grant-in-aid basis.
11. Admittedly, the posts were advertised on 31/10/1994 and the petitioners were selected for the post of Junior Clerk and Peon and appointment orders accordingly issued on 30/12/1994. The petitioner No.1 thereafter was promoted to the post of Senior Clerk in 2009. The State of Maharashtra issued Government Resolution sanctioning grant- in-aid for the course of B.P.E. (3 years) at the respondent No.4- College on 29/06/2009. On 14/02/2012, the Joint Director of Sports and Physical Education granted approval to the appointments of the petitioners. The petitioners in 2015 preferred Writ Petition No.3523 of 2015. The said petition was disposed of directing the petitioners to make representation to the respondent No.2 i.e. Director of Higher Education, State of Maharashtra, Pune. The Dy.Director of Education rejected the same. Therefore, another Writ Petition No.7737 of 2017 is filed by the present petitioners along with other teaching staff. The said petition was withdrawn with liberty to take recourse to the remedy available in law. It is J-WP No.3967.2022.odt 8/15 also an admitted fact that teaching staff were considered for their placement in proper pay scale, however, non-teaching staff were denied with the similar relief. It appears that in view of the judgment dated 23/07/2019 in Writ Petition No. 7737 of 2017 (Dr.Premsingh S/o Shivpalsingh Sayar and others v. The State of Maharashtra and others) and Special Leave Petition No.5925 of 2020 before the Hon'ble Apex Court, the respondent No.3-Joint Director of Education, Amravati Division, Amravati in the said petition the petitioners, who were teaching staff, granted approval to the protection of deemed pay fixation from their initial date of appointments and granted actual benefits from the date on which the institution is brought on 100% grant-in-aid basis.
12. By way of legal notice, it is brought to the notice of the Director of Higher Education and Joint Director of Higher Education, Amravati Division, Amravati that the employees similarly situated to that of the petitioners are serving with teachers from the Hanuman Vyayam Prasarak Mandal's Degree College of Physical Education, Amravati. Their employees were granted higher pay scale as compared to the petitioners. J-WP No.3967.2022.odt 9/15 It is also brought to the notice that the petitioners were appointed on full time basis and not on contributory or temporary basis. They are doing their jobs since 1994 till today as permanent employees. The teaching staff of the College of the petitioners extended benefits of proper pay scale and getting financial benefits since the date of receipt of grants. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled being a non- teaching staff of the same institution to get their proper placement and deemed pay fixation, as extended to the non- teaching staff working at the Hanuman Vyayam Prasarak Mandal's Degree College of Physical Education, Amravati, as duties of both the teaching and non-teaching staff are identical, the rules and regulations and eligibility criteria are identical. Thus, non-granting of those benefits to the non- teaching staff of respondent No.4-College amounts to violation of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' and it amounts to discrimination.
13. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment in Writ Petition No.3160 of 2021 (Hemant Jagannath Vidwansa v. State of Maharashtra and others ) J-WP No.3967.2022.odt 10/15 (supra), wherein this Court already decided this issue. The petitioner therein was a Junior Clerk in Hanuman Vyayam Prasarak Mandal, Amravati. Thereafter, his services were transferred to Degree College of Physical Education, Amravati. He was duly promoted as Senior Clerk and then Head Clerk. The said college came on 100% grant-in-aid basis in the year 2009-2010 by the order of Dy. Director of Sports and Youth Welfare, Pune dated 22/09/2011, considering the initial date of appointment and benefit of continuity of service of the staff, provided pay protection to the salary of the non-teaching staff and also provided the Provident Fund account number to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the institution.
14. In this petition when proposal of pension was sent to the office of the Joint Director of Higher Education, Amravati, a query was raised to the institution, as to how the petitioners are entitled for pensionary benefits and their entitlement was duly explained. It is also brought to the notice that ten Associate Professors of the College were appointed before 01/11/2005, they are receiving the pensionary benefits and their proposals were accepted by the respondent No.2- J-WP No.3967.2022.odt 11/15 Joint Director of Higher Education without any objection. The respondent No.2-Joint Director of Higher Education without considering the explanation refused to accept the pension case of the petitioners. That order was under challenge in the present petition and this Court relying on the judgment passed in Writ Petition No.2068 of 2019 (Rajesh Pande v. State of Maharashtra) held that in view of the fact that the same Authority i.e. Joint Director of Education accepted the proposal of ten Associate Professors, one Head Clerk and one Accountant and all of them teaching and non-teaching staff are receiving pensionary benefits from the respondents- Department. In the said matter, the Dy.Director of Sports and Youth Welfare, Pune vide its order dated 22/09/2011 protected the services of the non-teaching staff from the date of their appointments as also protected their pay scales with effect from 01/06/2009. This Court held that, that means the services of the petitioner rendered before receiving grant-in- aid to the college was also considered by protecting the pay and services. In view of this background, the petition came to be allowed and impugned communication dated 27/07/2021 J-WP No.3967.2022.odt 12/15 was quashed and set aside. It was held that the petitioner is entitled for all pensionary benefits of the service which he has rendered in respondent No.3-Degree College for his service tenure.
15. In the present matter, the petitioners are non- teaching staff. They were earlier filed Writ Petition No.7737 of 2017, wherein they were arrayed as petitioner Nos.5 to 7. However, they sought leave to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a separate petition. This Court granted liberty as prayed for. Therefore, what is contended by the respondents in their reply that this Court distinguished teaching staff from the petitioners due to different service conditions and denied relief is totally incorrect. When the appointments are prior to cut-off date, the employees are entitled for Employees' Old Pension Scheme. This issue is no more res integra in view of the judgment of this Court and GR dated 18/06/2025 which is also issued by the State of Maharashtra that even if advertisement is issued prior to cut-off date i.e. 01/11/2005, employee is entitled to get the benefit of Employees' Old Pension Scheme under the said GR. It is expressed that the J-WP No.3967.2022.odt 13/15 option may be given to the employees either to opt for Old Pension Scheme or DCPS. In view of the GR dated 18/06/2025, the petitioners are entitled for Old Pension Scheme.
16. After going through the judgment in Writ Petition No.7737 of 2017, the statement made by the learned Addl.G.P. appears to be incorrect. After withdrawal of the petition, the petitioners made representation to the respondents, however, it was not considered. Even though the petitioners were appointed on temporary basis, they were continued in the service without any break. The teaching staff in Writ Petition No.7737 of 2017 were granted higher pay scale at par with their counter parts in the other college at Amravati with effect from 01/06/2009, the date on which both these colleges were brought on 100% grant-in-aid basis. They were also extended benefits under the Employees' Pension Scheme and GPF since their date of appointments. The respondents have not pointed out how the service conditions of the petitioners are different than the service conditions of non-teaching staff of Hanuman Vyayam Prasarak Mandal, Amravati. Therefore, the issue is J-WP No.3967.2022.odt 14/15 fairly covered by the judgment in Writ Petition No.3160 of 2021. Withdrawal of the petition by the non-teaching staff would not come in the way of the rights of present petitioners of getting benefits of Employees' Old Pension Scheme and GPF. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for similar benefits granted to the teaching staff for the respondent No.4-College vide its order dated 08/01/2021 issued by the respondent No.3-Joint Director of Higher Education, Amravati Division, Amravati. Accordingly the petition is allowed.
16. The respondent No.3-Joint Director of Higher Education, Amravati Division, Amravati is directed to place the petitioners in proper pay scale, considering the length of service from their respective date of appointments and to grant similar benefits granted to the teaching staff of the respondent No.4-College vide order dated 08/01/2021 issued by the respondent No.3-Joint Director of Higher Education, Amravati Division, Amravati.
17. We also direct that so far as the extension of benefits under the Employees' Pension Scheme and GPF Scheme are J-WP No.3967.2022.odt 15/15 concerned, the same shall be made available to these petitioners from the respective date of their initial appointments.
18. The above exercise of proper placement be carried out by the respondents within a period of six weeks.
19. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
20. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs. (PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.) (SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.) Kirtak/KHUNTE Signed by: Mr. G.S. Khunte Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 09/09/2025 18:03:25