Bombay High Court
SHRI RAJARAM MAHADEO PATILversusTHE STATE OF MAHRASHTRA
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The petition is allowed; the petitioner shall be treated as a full‑time teacher with all associated benefits.
Summary
The petitioner, Rajaram Mahadeo Patil, was appointed on a part‑time basis in two different colleges of the same educational institution in 1993 and 1995. He sought to be treated as a full‑time teacher under Government Resolutions dated 5 January 1982 and 12 August 1996, claiming salary, allowance and pension benefits accordingly. The State opposed, alleging the petitioner served only in one college and that no document proved dual appointments. The Court examined the appointment orders, the government resolution, and a communication from the institution confirming staffing approvals for both colleges, and found the petitioner indeed held two part‑time posts. Relying on the resolution, the Court held that the petitioner is entitled to full‑time status with all consequent benefits, directing the respondents to process his pension and pay arrears. The petition was consequently allowed and the interim application dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether a part‑time teacher appointed in two colleges of the same institution is entitled to be treated as a full‑time teacher under the Government Resolutions of 5 January 1982 and 12 August 1996.
- Whether the petitioner is eligible for salary differentials, allowances, and pension benefits as a full‑time teacher.
Subjects
- part‑time appointment
- full‑time conversion
- government resolution
- salary arrears
- pension
- educational institution
- writ of mandamus
Judgment
6-WP-12416-2022 (C).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 12416 OF 2022
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 11022 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 12416 OF 2022
Rajaram Mahadeo Patil
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra And Ors.
…..
Mr. Satyajeet Rajeshirke (Through V.C.) a/w Mr. S.R. Vasekar,
Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. A. I. Patel, Addl. G.P. for the Respondent - State.
…..
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, &
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : 6th AUGUST, 2026
P. C. :
1. Heard Mr. Rajeshirke, learned Advocate for the Petitioner /
Applicant, and Mr. Patel, learned Additional Government Pleader for
the Respondent-State.
2. It is an irony that more than four years have passed, but no
Affidavit-in-Reply has been filed, and today time is sought for two
more weeks. It is a very sorry state of affairs to say the least.
Digitally
signed by
SAJAKALI
SAJAKALI LIYAKAT
LIYAKAT JAMADAR
JAMADAR Date:
2026.08.07
10:07:04 1 of 5
+0530
6-WP-12416-2022 (C).doc
3. The Petitioner has been appointed on part-time basis in two
colleges belonging to the same educational institution. The first
order of appointment is dated 16.07.1993, a copy of which is
appended at Exhibit "A" Page-26, whereby the Petitioner was
appointed as an Assistant Teacher on part-time basis. The second
appointment is dated 10.06.1995, a copy of which is appended at
Page-59. Both these appointments are in two different colleges
belonging to the same institution.
4. The case of the Petitioner is squarely covered by the
Government Resolution dated 12.08.1996, and more specifically by
Clauses 1 and 2 thereof. Both of us on the Bench understand
Marathi and are Maharashtrians. We have perused Clauses 1 and 2
of the said Government Resolution and we find no ambiguity with
regard to the applicability of the same to the Petitioner's case.
5. The case of the Petitioner is further fortified by virtue of a
communication issued by the concerned educational institution, a
copy of which is appended at Exhibit "J", page 118, from which it is
prima facie seen that the appointment of the Petitioner to the posts
in both colleges belonging to the same educational institution has
been approved in the staffing pattern by the competent authority.
2 of 5
6-WP-12416-2022 (C).doc
6. However, so far as the Shalarth Pranali is concerned, only one
institution has been approved because the Aadhaar number cannot
be updated in the second institution.
7. It is clearly seen from the aforesaid Exhibits appended to the
Petition that the Petitioner had been appointed on part-time basis in
two different colleges of the same educational institution, namely,
Ratnadeep High School and Junior College, Ganganagar, and D.M.
High School and Junior College, Kasba Sangav.
8. Mr. Patel, learned Additional Government Pleader, has
vehemently opposed the Petition. We do not understand the reason
for such vehemence when the aforesaid documentary evidence
speaks for itself. According to Mr. Patel, there is no document to
show that the Petitioner served in two different colleges, and it is
stated that the Petitioner was appointed on part-time basis in the
same college.
9. It prima facie appears to us that Mr. Patel is unfortunately
incorrect. The educational institution may be the same, but it may
have different colleges. Such is the case of the Petitioner before us,
and in order to tide over such situations, the State Government has
issued the Government Resolution dated 12.08.1996. We find no
3 of 5
6-WP-12416-2022 (C).doc
impediment in allowing the Petition in view of our aforesaid
observations and findings.
10. Though Mr. Patel has persuaded us to permit him to file an
Affidavit-in-Reply, considering the age of the Petition, we reject his
request, since we are fully convinced that the Petitioner deserves the
relief prayed for in the Petition.
11. The Petition therefore stands allowed in terms of prayer
clauses (a), (b), (c1) and (c2) which are reproduced here :
“a) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue Writ of
mandamus or any other Writ, order or direction and thereby
direct the Respondents to grant the benefits of the aforesaid
Government Resolutions dated 5.1.1982 and 12.8.1996 by
treating the Petitioner as a Full Time Teacher and fixing the pay
scale of the Petitioner to the pay scale of Full Time Teacher
along with all the consequential service benefits of a Full Time
Teacher with effect from 13.6.1994.
b) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue Writ of
mandamus or any other Writ, order or direction and thereby
direct the Respondents to make payment of difference in salary
and all the allowances including Dearness Allowance, House
Rent Allowance, local supplementary allowance along with
bonus applicable for the post of Full Time Assistant Teacher
and on account of drawing the salary as a Part Time Teacher
from two part time posts from 13.6.1994.
c1) this Hon Court may be pleased to direct Respondent to
make payment of difference in arrears of salary between Full
time teacher post and one part time teacher post from
1/05/2019 to 31/05/2024.
c2) this Hon Court May be pleased to direct Respondent no 5
to 7 to submit Pension proposal of the Petitioner and further
direct Respondent no 1 to 4 to sanction and disburse the
Pension of the Petitioner along with arrears of Pension.”
4 of 5
6-WP-12416-2022 (C).doc
12. The Petitioner has already retired in the year 2024. We direct
that the pension proposal of the Petitioner shall be sent by the
educational institution where the Petitioner was working and from
which the Petitioner superannuated to Respondent Nos. 1 to 4
within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a server
copy of this order.
13. A copy shall be served upon the concerned educational
institution by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner.
14. We direct Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to process the pension
proposal of the Petitioner as a full-time teacher and for all
consequential benefits and accordingly issue appropriate sanction
and approval therefor within a period of two weeks from the date of
receipt of the said proposal from Respondent No. 5 – the
Management of the educational institution.
15. The Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
16. In view of the disposal of the Writ Petition, the Interim
Application does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly.
[NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.] [MILIND N. JADHAV, J.]
Sajakali
5 of 5
Checking your session…