[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Dr. Pravina Shirish Nagpurkar vs The State Of Maha. The. Principal Secy., ... on 23 January, 2026
Author: Anil S. Kilor
Bench: Anil S. Kilor
2026:BHC-NAG:1145-DB
126 WP-643-2026
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.643 OF 2026
[Dr. Pravina Shirish Nagpurkar ..Vs.. The State of Maharashtra and
Others]
______________________________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order
and Registrar's orders.
Shri. C. B. Pawar, Adv. h/f Shri. P. S. Kshirsagar, Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri. P. P. Pendke, AGP for Respondents/State.
CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND
RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ.
DATE : 23rd JANUARY, 2026.
. Heard Shri. C. B. Pawar holding for Shri. P. S.
Kshirsagar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking
challenge to the impugned communication dated 22 nd May,
2024, issued by respondent No.3 - the Joint Director,
Higher Education, Nagpur Division, Nagpur.
3. By way of the aforesaid impugned communication, the
respondent No.3 has refused to allow the proposal submitted
by respondent No.4 - the Principal, Mahila Mahavidyalaya,
Nagpur, for extending the benefit of the old pension scheme
to the petitioner.
4. The sole reason on which the aforesaid proposal has
been rejected, by way of the impugned communication, is
that the provisions of the Maharashtra Civil Services
(Pension) Rules, 1982 (for short, "the MCSR, 1982") are
applicable only to the Government servants and not to
employees of Private Aided Colleges and, therefore, the
126 WP-643-2026
petitioner, being an employee of a Private Aided College, is
not entitled to the benefit of the old pension scheme.
5. A perusal of the impugned communication dated
22nd May, 2024, reveals that the aforesaid view adopted by
respondent No.3 is unsustainable in the eyes of law. The
aforesaid reason given by respondent No.3 that the
employees of the Private Aided Colleges will not be entitled
to the benefit of the old pension scheme under the provisions
of the MCSR, 1982, is erroneous, as the said issue is already
decided by this Court vide its judgment dated 13th August,
2025, passed in Writ Petition No.669 of 2024, wherein this
Court has held as thus:
"We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
considered the documents placed on record. It is clear
from the Government Resolution dated 31/10/2005
that same would be applicable to the employees who are
recruited on or after 01/11/2005 in the service of the
Recognized and Aided Educational Institutions, Non-
Agricultural Universities and Affiliated Non-
Governmental Colleges and Agricultural Universities,
etc. Hence, considering the policy framed by the State
Government, it is clear that the same was made
applicable to the employees of Non-Agricultural
Universities. Therefore, objection raised by Respondent
is not sustainable in the eyes of law."
6. In view of the above, the impugned communication
dated 22nd May, 2024, issued by respondent No.3, is
erroneous and unsustainable in the eyes of law and is
accordingly quashed and set aside. Respondent No.3 is
directed to reconsider the proposal submitted by respondent
No.4-College pertaining to the pensionary benefits,
specifically for granting the benefit of the old pension scheme
126 WP-643-2026
to the petitioner, afresh within a period of eight weeks from
the date of receipt of this order. The decision taken
thereupon shall be communicated to the petitioner so also to
the respondent No.4, within a period of two weeks from the
date of such decision.
7. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
(RAJ D. WAKODE, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.)
TAMBE
Signed by: Mr. Ashish Tambe
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 23/01/2026 14:42:18
