Bombay High Court
Mukadam Jalila vs The State Of Maharashtra Thro. It ... on 9 September, 2025
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge
2025:BHC-AS:38017-DB
[email protected]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.14611 OF 2024
Mangal Sarjerao Mokashi @
Mangal Kailas Nilkanth ...Petitioner
vs.
The State of Maharashtra and Others ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14196 OF 2024
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14080 OF 2024
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14077 OF 2024
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14079 OF 2024
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14076 OF 2024
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14610 OF 2024
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14622 OF 2024
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14612 OF 2024
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14613 OF 2024
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14614 OF 2024
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14615 OF 2024
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.1975 OF 2025 (Sr.8)
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.6442 OF 2025 (Sr.21)
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8727 OF 2025 (Sr.27)
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.10065 OF 2025 (Sr.31)
WITH
Vishal Parekar, PS ...1
::: Uploaded on - 12/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2025 23:22:38 :::
[email protected]
WRIT PETITION NO.10066 OF 2025 (Sr.32)
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.10067 OF 2025 (Sr.33)
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.10068 OF 2025 (Sr.34)
Mr. Vivek Chauhan i/b. Mr. Arvind Ambetkar, for the Petitioners.
Mr. P.P. Kakade, AGP a/w. Mr. V.G. Badgujar, Mr. O.A. Chandurkar, Mr.
P.N. Diwan, Mr. N.M. Mehra, Mr. S.H. Kankal and Ms. Pooja Deshpande,
for the Respondent-State.
Mr. Manish Kelkar a/w. Ms. Gauri Phadake, for Respondent Nos. 6 and 7.
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &
ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 9, 2025
P.C:
1. All the Petitioners in these Petitions are identically placed. In
similar facts and circumstances, with reference to identically placed
Petitioners, this Court had passed an order on 27th February, 2025 in Writ
Petition No. 2345 of 2014 and connected matters (Maharashtra Rajya
Madhyamik Va Uccha Madhyamik Shala Kruti Samittee and Ors. vs. State
of Maharashtra and Ors.). We had issued specific directions in paragraph
17 of the said judgment dated 27th February, 2025, which reads as under:-
17} In view of the above, these Petitions are disposed off with the
following directions:-
(a) The cases of these Petitioners (working in Junior colleges)
including those persons who are represented by a Union or an Action
Committee, or those who have not approached the Court, would be
placed before the respective Deputy Director of Education of the said
Division. In the case of the schools, the proposals would be tendered
to the Education Officer, who would transmit them to the Deputy
Director of Education. In the case of Junior College Employees, their
Vishal Parekar, PS ...2
[email protected]
respective Managements would forward their proposals directly to the
Deputy Director of Education.
(b) Let the above exercise be completed by the respective employers
within a period of 45 days from the date of the uploading of this final
order on the official website of the Bombay High Court. Parties are at
liberty to act on the printout of this final order downloaded from the
official website.
(c) After the Deputy Director of Education of the respective regions
receive such proposals, a meticulous scrutiny of the records would be
carried out with the assistance of the Management. While sending the
proposals, the Managements would mention their e-mail addresses on
the proposals for easy correspondence so as to enable the Deputy
Director of Education to seek clarification or assistance or solicit
further information, as the case may be.
(d) All the proposals would be scrutinized, preferably by 30th
September, 2025.
(e) The concerned Deputy Director of Education would pass
individual orders in the case of each candidate mentioned in the
proposal. Those who are already retired would be given a priority and
their proposals would be decided first. Those who are close to
retirement, their proposals would be taken up thereafter and those who
have a sufficiently long duration for retirement, would be taken up
thereafter.
(f) In matters wherein the proposals are negatived, the Deputy Director
would assign reasons which would indicate the basis of the rejection.
We clarify that his order must clearly indicate the reasons for the
refusal of the Old Pension Scheme to a particular candidate.
(g) We make it clear to the Managements of all Schools and Colleges
over the State of Maharashtra that they would forward the proposals as
directed above, not only with regard to those Petitioners or candidates
who were able to reach the Court by filing Petitions, and would
include even those candidates who are the employees on its rolls and
forward their proposals also to avoid further litigation or inflow of
new matters. In short, those candidates who are employees and not
before the Court would also be the beneficiaries of this order and the
respective employers would also forward their proposal along with
proposals of these Petitioners.
(h) Until the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is delivered in the
Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the State Government
challenging the view taken by the Division Bench in Nilesh Namdev
Gurav (supra) and the proceedings initiated by individuals before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court [assailing the view taken by the learned Full
Bench of this Court in Deshmukh Dilipkumar Bhagwan and Others
(supra)], the Deputy Director of Education would follow the law as is
laid down in Deshmukh Dilipkumar Bhagwan and Others (supra) and
Vishal Parekar, PS ...3
[email protected]
Nilesh Namdev Gurav (supra). In the event, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court delivers an order in Deshmukh Dilipkumar Bhagwan and Others
(supra) and/or Nilesh Namdev Gurav (supra), the said Authority would
be obliged to follow the view and the directions set out by the Hon'ble
Supreme in such judgment."
2. While issuing the aforesaid directions, we had referred to a
judgment delivered by the Full Bench of this Court in Deshmukh
Dilipkumar Bhagwan and Others V/s. State of Maharashtra and Others 1, the
observations of which have been reproduced in paragraph Nos. 6, 7 and 8
which read as under:-
6} For the aforesaid reasons, the Hon'ble the Chief Justice constituted
a Full Bench [Coram: S.C. Dharmadhikari (as his Lordship then was),
Akil Kureshi and Nitin W. Sambre JJ.] which delivered its judgment in
Deshmukh Dilipkumar Bhagwan and Others (supra) reported at 2019
(3) Mh.L.J. 903. The learned Full Bench quoted the issues that were
addressed to it, in Paragraph No.16 which reads as under:
"16. The Court, therefore, referred the following
questions for consideration of the Larger Bench.
1. Whether only those schools and colleges of education
which are receiving 100% aid can be termed as the aided
institutions or whether schools and colleges of education
receiving less than 100% aid can also be termed as aided
institution?
2. Whether the employees who were appointed prior to
1st November, 2005 in the aided recognized primary,
secondary and higher secondary schools as well as
colleges of education which were receiving less than
100% grant-in-aid as on 1st November, 2005 are entitled
to the benefit of Old Pension Scheme under the Pension
Rules and the Commutation of Pension Rules or whether
they will be governed by the New Pension Scheme under
the GR of 2005?
3. Whether the employees who were appointed prior to
1st November, 2005 in the aided recognized primary,
secondary and higher secondary schools as well as the
colleges of education which were receiving less than
100% grant-in-aid as on 1st November, 2005 but which
became 100% aided before the date on which the GR of
1 2019 (3) Mh.L.J. 903.
Vishal Parekar, PS ...4
[email protected]
2010 came into force, are entitled to the benefit of Old
Pension Scheme under the Pension Rules and the
Commutation of Pension Rules or whether they will be
governed by the New Pension Scheme under the GR of
2005?"
7} The learned Full Bench has recorded in Paragraph No.1 as under:
The petitioners in these petitions are teachers and non-
teaching staff regularly appointed in various recognized
aided schools in the State of Maharashtra. The respective
schools are presently receiving 100% grant-in-aid from
the State Government. All these employees were
appointed prior to 1-11-2005. However, at the time of
their appointments, the schools were not receiving 100%
grant-in-aid. Admitted position is that all the schools
started receiving 100% grant-in-aid from the Government
only after 1-11-2005. The significance of this cut off date
of 1-11-2005 would become clear as we record further
facts. At this stage, however, we note that the
Government of Maharashtra has introduced a Defined
Contributory Pension Scheme ("DCP Scheme" for short)
w.e.f. 1-11-2005 for the State Government employees as
well as for the staff of private aided schools and colleges
replacing the existing pension scheme. Petitioners claim
that as they have been recruited prior to 1-11-2005, they
would be governed by the old pension scheme
irrespective of the fact that the schools in which they
were appointed, started receiving 100% government grant
after 1-11-2005. On the other hand, Government argues
that an employee of a private school recruited prior to 1-
11-2005 would be governed by DCP Scheme if the school
in which he was appointed, started receiving 100% grant-
in-aid only after 1-11-2005."
8} While dealing with the issues addressed to the larger Bench, it has
been recorded in Paragraph No. 28 as regards the origin of the Pension
Scheme, as under:
28. We have traced the origin of the right of the
employees of the aided recognized schools to receive
pension from the Government. It originated from the GR
dated 4-1-1968 under which it was provided that the
pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits admissible to
the Maharashtra State Government Servants under the
Revised Pension Rules 1950 as amended from time to
time and the family pension would be applicable to the
full time teaching staff in recognized aided non-
Government secondary schools in the State who retire on
or after 1-4-1966. Over a period of time, such benefits
were extended also to the employees of aided primary
schools. In order to regulate, recruitment and conditions
of service of employees in private schools in the State,
the said Act of 1977 was enacted. In exercise of powers
Vishal Parekar, PS ...5
[email protected]
conferred under the said Act, the State Government
framed the Rules of 1981 in which the pensionary
benefits of the employees of the private recognized aided
schools were recognized under Rule 19. As per this Rule,
an employee of an aided secondary school and aided
Junior College of Education working on full time basis
and retiring on or after 1-4-1966 and an employee of an
aided primary school working on full time basis and
retiring on or after 1-4-1979 who have opted for pension
and the employee appointed on or after the said dates
would be eligible for pension at the rates and in
accordance with the rules as are sanctioned by the
Government specifically to the employees of private
schools. Thus, the Government brought within the fold of
the pension scheme all the full time employees of aided
secondary school, aided Junior College of education and
primary school from respective dates. The existing staff
would have an option to be continued to be governed by
the contributory provident fund scheme or to switch over
to the pension scheme. All employees appointed after the
cut off date would automatically and compulsorily be
governed by the pension scheme. The right to claim
pension from the Government by a full time employee of
a school was thus closely linked with the educational
institution receiving aid from the Government. Unless
and until, the school in question was paid grant-in-aid by
the Government, the question of the employee of said
school claiming pensionary benefits from the
Government would not arise. It is indisputable that even
in absence of the present controversy, an employee of a
private recognized school could claim pension from the
Government only if the school in which he was employed
at the time of his retirement was receiving Government
grant-in-aid. Even otherwise, the concept of asking the
Government to pay pension to an employee of a school
which does not receive grant from the Government is
entirely unknown. The liability of the Government to pay
to a retired employee of a private recognized school the
post retirement benefits would arise only if the school
from which the employee retired was receiving
Government grant-in-aid."
3. Ultimately, the Full Bench answered the three questions referred
to it, in paragraph 37 which was reproduced by this Court in paragraph 10,
as under:-
10} The learned Full Bench recognised this aspect of the matter and
Vishal Parekar, PS ...6
[email protected]
dealt with the issues addressed to it, taking into account the G.R. dated
31st October, 2005. Consequentially, the learned Full Bench answered
the three issues in Paragraph No.37 as under:
"37. Under these circumstances, we answer the Reference as under:-
Question No. 1:
In the context of the right of an employee of private school
or college of education to receive pensionary benefits and
the corresponding liability of the Government to pay the
same, only those schools and colleges of education which
are receiving 100% grant-in-aid can be termed as aided
institutions.
Question No. 2:
The employees who were appointed prior to 1-11- 2005 in
aided recognized primary, secondary schools as well as
colleges of education which were receiving less than 100%
grant-in-aid as on 1-11-2005 would be governed by the DCP
scheme.
Question No. 3:
Similar will be the situation of the employees who were
appointed prior to 1-11-2005 in aided primary, secondary
and higher secondary schools as well as the colleges of
education which were receiving less than 100% grant-in-aid
as on 1-11-2005 but which became 100% aided before 29-
11-2010 would also be governed by the DCP scheme."
4. In view of the above, it would be appropriate to follow the same
course as has been adopted by this Court vide judgment dated 27 th
February, 2025. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, as recorded herein
above, all these Petitions are disposed off in terms of the directions set out
below paragraph 17(a) to 17(h).
5. The Dy. Director of Education or the Education Officer, as the
case may be, would scrutinize each of the cases of the Petitioners in view
of the directions reproduced below paragraph 17 herein above.
Vishal Parekar, PS ...7
[email protected]
6. Needless to state, the cases in which the authorities conclude that
the Petitioners are eligible for old pension scheme, including those who
may have superannuated, if any, further steps for submissions of their
pension papers and their clearances shall be taken up expeditiously and in
such circumstances, the office of the Accountant General would not hold
any of such candidates as being ineligible for pension after the Competent
Authority has duly scrutinized those cases.
7. It goes without saying that if any claims of any of these
Petitioners are rejected, meaning thereby, if their claim for OPS is not
accepted on the ground of ineligibility, they would be at liberty to avail of a
remedy as is permissible in law.
8. So far as the directions below paragraph 17(g) reproduced above,
by which the Management of Schools and Colleges all over the State of
Maharashtra have been directed to forward proposals to the appropriate
authorities for scrutiny, if there is any shortage of information or if the
Management finds itself short of details or if it deems appropriate to elicit
further information from such employees, they would call upon the
employees to tender certain documents which are required for assessing
their claims and the employees would thereafter render co-operation in
Vishal Parekar, PS ...8
[email protected]
order to assist the Management in supplying the documents.
9. In the earlier cases, the time line was granted to the extent of
seven months. Hence, we would expect the entire exercise to be completed
by 15th April, 2026.
10. If the proposals have not been tendered, the Managements would
scrutinize such proposals by gathering appropriate information and submit
the same expeditiously.
11. All contentions of such Petitioners while assailing such adverse
decisions, are kept open.
12. In view of above order and the disposal of the Petitions, the
Interim Applications, would not survive and stand disposed off.
(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
Vishal Parekar, PS ...9
