Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra Thr Its ... vs Dr. Ashish Manoharrao Mahalle on 25 November, 2025
Author: Anil S. Kilor
Bench: Anil S. Kilor
2025:BHC-NAG:12900-DB
1 920E.wp.4701.2023.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 4701 OF 2023
State of Maharashtra and others
.Vs.
Dr. Ashish Manoharrao Mahalle
_______________________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.
Mr Neeraj Patil, AGP for the petitioners
Ms Ritu Jog, Advocate for respondent
CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND RAJNISH R. VYAS, JJ.
DATED : NOVEMBER 25, 2025.
Heard.
2. The State Government has filed this petition
questioning the legality and validity of the judgment dated
14.07.2022 passed in Original Application No. 38 of 2021,
filed by the respondent, claiming the benefits of old pension
scheme.
3. The Tribunal vide impugned judgment and order
dated 14.07.2022 allowed the original application and directed
the petitioners to regularize the services of the applicant/
respondent from the date of his initial appointment i.e. from
30.09.1999 for the purpose of counting his service for
pensionary benefits. The petitioners are further directed to
give all the benefits of old pension scheme to the applicant
treating his regular service from 30.09.1999.
4. The learned Tribunal while allowing such claim
of the respondent has recorded the findings as follows:
2 920E.wp.4701.2023.odt
"11. There is no dispute that the applicant was
appointed as a Reader in the Rashtra Sant Tukdoji
Maharashtra University, Nagpur. It is government
recognised post. The applicant applied for relieving
him from Engineering College of Amravati. He was
relieved to join the new posting as a Reader. The
applicant was in continuous service when he joined the
post of Reader in the year 2009.
12. The applicant was made permanent on the
post of Professor as per office order dated 11/05/2011
(P-162) of Vice Chancellor, Rastra Sant Tukdoji
Maharaj University, Nagpur. The applicant was
appointed by the MPSC on the post of Professor in
Govt. Engineering College, Jalgaon as per the order
dated 28/12/2016 (Annex-A-17). The applicant could
not join and therefore on his request he was posted at
Amravati in the Govt. Engineering College.
13. It is clear from the documents filed on record
that whole service of the applicant was as a Lecturer in
the Government Engineering College and as a Reader
in the Laxminarayan Institute of Technology. The
services of the applicant were protected by this
Tribunal and thereafter by the Hon'ble Bombay High
Court, Bench at Nagpur. The Hon'ble Bombay High
Court, Bench at Nagpur has passed the order in Writ
Petition No. 2046/2010. In para-22 of the order passed
in Writ Petition No.2046/2010 is reproduced as
under :
"22. The respondents are directed to regularize the services
of such of the petitioners and confer permanency on such
petitioners who have completed three years' service with
technical breaks. The respondents shall absorb the
petitioners within a period of six weeks. Needless to state
that the petitioners who are in continuous employment till
15.10.2013, shall be continued in service as regular
employees.
However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we
direct that the petitioners shall be entitled to regular salary
from 1st November, 2013 and would not be entitled to
claim any monetary benefits for the past services rendered
by them in spite of their regularization. Needless to state
that since the petitioners' services are regularized, they shall
be entitled to the continuity in service for all other purposes
except monetary purposes from the date of their first
appointment."
3 920E.wp.4701.2023.odt
14. The applicant was in service for more than
three years from 1999, therefore, he is also entitled for
the same relief in view of the G.R. dated 28/2/2017.
On the basis of the Judgment of Bombay High Court,
similarly situated employees like the applicant were
regularised. Therefore, the same treatment should have
been given by the respondents to the applicant in view
of G.R. dated 28/2/2017. The Judgments pointed out
by the learned counsel for applicant show that similarly
situated employees approached to the Tribunal / High
Court got the benefit of old pension scheme by
counting their ad-hoc services as a regular services. In
Writ Petition No. 5273/2017 decided on 3/7/2019, the
Hon'ble Bombay High Court, Bench at Nagpur passed
the following order -
"(4) Writ Petition is allowed. Respondents no.1 and 2 are
directed to consider the claim of the petitioner regarding
taking into account the ad-hoc service of the petitioner for
granting continuity in service, making of placement in
service and grant all pensionary and retiral benefit to the
petitioner on the same line as they have done following the
directions issued by this Court on 17/9/2018 in Writ
Petition No.4770/2017. Of course, we make it clear here
that some facts extent, the discretion can be appropriately
exercised by the respondents."
15. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal,
Principal Bench, Mumbai in O.A. 43/2018 granted
relief to the similarly situated employees whose services
were ad-hoc basis. It was declared that period of
employment of the said employees, i.e., the temporary
period shall be treated as ad-hoc employee for the
consideration of benefit of time bound promotion. The
break in service being a technical break shall be treated
as continuity in service.
16. The representations of the applicant are
replied by the respondents / government as per
communications dated 17/1/2022 and 21/1/2022. It
was informed to the applicant that's his service from
22/10/1999 to 5/8/2009 was a temporary / seasonal
service, therefore, he is not eligible / entitled for old
regular pension scheme. It is pertinent to note that the
respondents have regularised the services of similarly
situated employees as per the G.R. dated 13/3/2015. It
4 920E.wp.4701.2023.odt
is also pointed out by learned counsel that as per the
direction of Bombay High Court, Bench at Nagpur in
Writ Petition No. 5273/2017, decided on 3/7/2019 the
Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench directed the
Government of Maharashtra to regularise the services
of the similarly situated employees who had completed
three years service with a technical break. Services of
those employees are now regularised as per G.R. dated
9/12/2021.
17. The respondents are expected to give the
same treatment to the similarly situated employees. It is
clear that services of similarly Situated employees like
the applicant were regularised as per the direction of
Hon'ble Bombay High Court. The G.R. dated
28/2/2017 was issued by the Govt. of Maharashtra.
The relevant portion in para-3 of the G.R. is
reproduced as under -
3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Uttar Pradesh & Ors Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava
reported in 2015 (1) SCC 347 has laid down similar
principle, thus:
"Normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is
given relief by the Court, all other identically situated
persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit.
Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This
principle needs to be applied in service matters more
emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this
Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated
persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal
rule would be that merely because other similarly situated
persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to
be treated differently."
18. It is clear that the temporary services of similarly
situated employees like the applicant were regularised
by the Government, then there was no hurdle for the
Government to consider the representations of
applicant by taking into consideration the G.R. dated
28/2/2017. The applicant was initially appointed in the
year 1999. His service was continued with a technical
break. Whole service of the applicant was with the
respondents/department and therefore he is entitled for
the same treatment as like other similarly situated
employees. ..."
5 920E.wp.4701.2023.odt
5. Having gone through the findings recorded by
the Tribunal and on perusal of the record we do not find any
merit in the present petition as the findings recorded by the
Tribunal are just and proper. Moreover, no perversity has been
pointed out in granting such relief and allowing the original
application in favour of the respondent.
6. Thus, in absence of any merit in the present
petition, we dismiss the same. No order as to costs.
[RAJNISH R. VYAS, J] [ANIL S. KILOR, J.]
Namrata
Signed by: Miss Namrata Suryawanshi
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 25/11/2025 19:41:32
