SUHAS SURYAKANT SATONKAR AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:42337-DB
                                         1                          98.WP.10371.24.odt

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               WRIT PETITION NO.10371 OF 2024

             1.     Suhas Suryakant Satonkar
             2.     Gajanan Gopalrao Mandlik              …     PETITIONERS
                                VERSUS
             1.     The State of Maharashtra,
                    through its Secretary
                    Higher and Technical Education
                    Department Mantralaya Mumbai – 32.
             2.     The Director of Higher and Technical
                    Education, Maharashtra State, Pune.
             3.     The Joint Director of Higher Education,
                    Nanded Division, Nanded.
             4.     Swami Ramanand Teerth Marathwada
                    University through its Registrar, Nanded
             5.     Sant Janabai Shikshan Sanstha’s
                    Arts, Commerce and Science College,
                    Gangakhed, Tq. Gangakhed
                    Dist. Parbhani, through Principal          … RESPONDENTS
                                                …
                     Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. Patil Indrale Anand V.
                          AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : Mr. B.B. Bhise
                         Advocate for Respondent No.4 : Mr. V.P. Latange
                                                …
                                CORAM            : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI &
                                                    ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
                                Reserved on    : 27.07.2026
                                Pronounced on : 15.09.2026


             ORDER (PER: ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.) :

             1.            By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the

             Constitution of India, the petitioners are seeking the following

             reliefs :
                             2                              98.WP.10371.24.odt

     “(B) By issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate
          writ, order or directions, the impugned order dated
          10/07/2023, (served on petitioners in the last week of
          August, 2024) issued by the Joint Director of Higher
          Education, Nanded Division, Nanded, thereby reducing
          the salary and pay-scale of petitioners be quashed and
          set aside. Consequently, the salary and pay scale of
          petitioners be restored as earlier and they be paid
          arrears of salary as well as regular salary along with all
          the consequential benefits with interest at the rate of
          15% per annum by quashing and setting aside the
          communication dated 23/07/2024, issued by
          respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 5-college, and for
          that purpose necessary directions be issued.

     (C) By issuing appropriate writ, order or directions, it be
         held and declared that, the 100% grant in aid provided
         to the Computer-science subject of Science faculty of
         respondent No. 5 College from the academic year
         2002-2003 has not been disturbed or cancelled by the
         Government       Resolution     dated      04/04/2012.
         Accordingly, it shall not be deemed that, Computer-
         science subject of Science faculty in respondent No. 5
         College is entitled for 100% grant in aid from
         01/04/2012 only. Consequently, the petitioners be paid
         their arrears of salary, regular salary and other
         consequential benefits along with interest at the rate of
         15% per annum by considering the 100% grant in aid
         of the Computer Science subject of Science faculty of
         respondent No.5 College since from the year 2002-
         2003 and for that purpose necessary directions be
         issued.”

2.          It is the case of the petitioners that they possess requisite

qualification of B.Sc., M.Sc. Computer Science. The petitioner No.1

has also acquired a Ph.D. degree, whereas, the petitioner No.2 has

registered for acquiring the said degree. Pursuant to advertisements
                           3                            98.WP.10371.24.odt

issued by Respondent No.5 –College, dated 23.07.1998 and

11.07.1999, the petitioners applied for the post of Lecturer in

Computer Science. Respondent No.5 after following due procedure

and having found the petitioners meritorious and eligible, appointed

them to the posts of lecturer in Computer Science. Respondent No.4

– University accordingly granted approval to their appointments. It

is further case of the petitioners that the Science Faculty of

respondent No.5/College started receiving grant-in-aid in phase

wise manner from the year 1997-1998 and eventually it started

receiving 100% grant-in-aid from the year 2002-2003. By the

Government Resolution dated 04.04.2012 (for the sake of brevity

‘the said Government Resolution’), the State Government in order to

remove disparity in the pay scales amongst teachers teaching other

subjects and the subjects of Electronics, Computer Science and

Physical Education held those subject to be entitled for 100% grant-

in-aid from the date prescribed in the said Government Resolution.

3.         The petitioners contend that Respondent No.2 – Joint

Director of Education vide communication dated 14.02.2013

informed Respondent No.5 – College that though the subject of

computer science was not entitled to receive grant-in-aid, the

petitioners were receiving the salary, whereas the said Government
                            4                           98.WP.10371.24.odt

Resolution contemplates of sanctioning 100% grant-in-aid to the

subject of computer science provided that, the selection of the

lecturers is made through duly constituted selection committee and

the said lecturers possessing requisite qualification. Respondent

No.2 therefore directed Respondent No.5 to stop the salary as they

do not possess NET-SET qualification.

4.   Being aggrieved by the said communication the petitioners

approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.667/2022 inter alia

contending that the said communication was issued without giving

proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. This Court by order

dated 17.03.2023 set aside the said communication, thereby,

directing Respondent No.3 to grant sufficient opportunity of hearing

to the petitioners and other stake holders and then pass the

appropriate order. As the directions of this Court were not complied

with, the petitioners’ filed Contempt Petition No.383/2024 before

this Court, however, during pendency of the said Contempt Petition,

Respondent No.3, after hearing the parties and relying on the said

Government Resolution passed the impugned order thereby

reducing the salary of the petitioners. The petitioners, therefore,

have approached this Court.

5.         Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
                            5                             98.WP.10371.24.odt

petitioners were appointed to the post of lecturers after following

due procedure of law in the year 1998-1999 and their services have

been duly approved by Respondent No.4 – University. Since the

science faculty of Respondent No.5 – College was receiving 100%

grant-in-aid, the petitioners were paid their salary in prescribed pay

scale. Respondent No.3, however, by the impugned communication

has reduced the salary of the petitioners by misinterpreting the said

Government Resolution. In support of his submission, he relied on

the decision of this Court dated 03.05.2018 in the case of Ajay s/o

Bapuappa Kurhe and Anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.,

(Writ Petition No.3328/2017). He, therefore, urged that the Writ

Petition deserves to be allowed.

6.    Per contra, learned AGP submits that the subject of Computer

Science was not receiving the grant-in-aid till the date of issuance of

Government Resolution. The said subject was brought on 100%

grant-in-aid for the first time by virtue of the said Government

Resolution. Although the petitioners contend that they were

receiving salary from Respondent No.5 in prescribed pay scale, the

same would be contrary to the Government policy since, the subject

of computer science was not receiving the grant-in-aid earlier. He,

therefore, urged that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
                                   6                                  98.WP.10371.24.odt

7.     We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

AGP for the State and perused the record.

8.      Before adverting to the submissions advanced by both the

sides it would be apt to reproduce the relevant clause of the said

Government Resolution which reads thus :

      ß1- ‘kklukus lu 1988&89 iwohZ] rlsp 1989 rs 23-01-1991 o
      1991 rs twu 2001 i;Zar T;k egkfo|ky;kauk R;kaP;k foKku o okf.kT;
      fo|k’kk[kkavarxZr lax.kd’kkL=] bysDVkªWfuDl o ‘kkfjjhd f’k{k.k ;k fo”k;kauk
      dk;e foukvuqnkukP;k vVhoj ijokuxh fnyh gksrh] R;kr lq/kkj.kk d:u ;k
      ‘kklu fu.kZ;klkscrP;k ifjf’k”V&v izek.ks lax.kd’kkL=&100 ifjf’k”V&c
      izek.ks bysDVkªWfuDl&13] o ifjf’k”V&d izek.ks ‘kkfjfjd f’k{k.k & 41
      egkfo|ky;krhy fo”k;kauk vuqnku rRokr cny d:u fn- 1 ,fizy]2012
      iklwu 100% vuqnkukoj vk.k.;kl eatqjh ns.;kr ;sr vkgs-”

9.     Bare perusal of above clause explicitly makes it clear that the

subject of Computer Science which the petitioners are teaching was

not receiving grant-in-aid initially, for the first time, it started

receiving 100% grant-in-aid pursuant to the said Government

Resolution.

10.    We thus find that the contention of the petitioners that by

virtue of the fact that Respondent No.5 – College was sanctioned

grant-in-aid in science faculty, the subject of Computer Science also

started receiving grant-in-aid is fallacious. The petitioners therefore

are neither entitled to receive the salary in prescribed pay scale for

the period prior to issuance of Government Resolution nor they can

claim the arrears of the salary retrospectively.
                             7                            98.WP.10371.24.odt

11.    So far as the reliance placed on the decision of this Court in

the case of Ajay s/o Bapuappa Kurhe (supra) is concerned, it would

be apposite to reproduce relevant observation of this Court which

reads thus :

      “5. It is also admitted by the Government in its affidavit-
          in-reply that the Science faculty of the Respondent
          No.5 College was sanctioned grant-in-aid in the year
          1998 and at that time affiliated subject was Computer
          Maintenance. The affidavit also states that on
          11.2.1999, University had communicated and sought
          consent for change of subject from Computer
          Maintenance to Computer Science. The same was prior
          to 2000. The petitioner No.1 is appointed on 27.7.1999
          for the subject Computer Science. His appointment is
          also approved as a Lecturer in Computer Science by
          the University initially on 30.8.1999 and thereafter on
          9.9.2000. Subsequent approval is also granted on
          permanent basis on 30.8.2001. This would show that
          the subject Computer Science was recognised by the
          University prior to the year 2000. It is also to be noted
          that since the academic year 2004-05 100% grant-in-
          aid was paid for the subject Computer Science of
          Respondent No.5 College and the salary of the
          petitioners were paid from grant-in-aid up to the year
          2012. The Government Resolution dated 4.4.2012 may
          not be relevant as far as petitioner's College is
          concerned. In view of the fact that the petitioner's
          College was already receiving grant-in-aid since 2004-
          05 and the Science faculty of the Respondent No.5
          College was given grant-in-aid from the year 1998-99.
          The subject Computer Maintenance was affiliated
          subject of Science faculty and the University had also
          on 11.2.1999 sought consent for the change of subject
          from Computer Maintenance to Computer Science and
          thereafter had granted approval to the appointment of
          petitioner as lecturer in Computer Science.
                             8                             98.WP.10371.24.odt

      6.   In view of all the aforesaid facts the Respondent would
           be estopped by conduct, so also the Respondent after
           having sanctioned grant-in-aid since the year 1998 to
           the Science faculty and the subject Computer Science
           was brought on 100% grant-in-aid in the academic
           year 2004-05, now can not be allowed to resile.
           (Emphasis supplied)”

12.    The aforesaid observations goes to show that the facts of the

said case and the present case stands totally on different footing

since, in the case of Ajay Bapuappa Kurhe (Supra), the subject of

Computer Science was admittedly receiving 100% grant-in-aid when

the petitioners therein were appointed and it is in that context this

Court directed to release the grant-in-aid towards the salary of the

petitioners therein, holding that the said Government Resolution has

no application. Whereas, in the present case the State Government

has denied that the subject of computer science was at all receiving

the grant-in-aid prior to the said Government Resolution.

13.    In view of the above discussion we find that the right to

receive salary in prescribed pay scale accrued in favour of the

petitioners for the first time by virtue of the said Government

Resolution and obviously the same would be made applicable

prospectively. We, therefore, do not find any illegality or irregularity

in the impugned order which warrants interference of this Court

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is
                            9                         98.WP.10371.24.odt

devoid of any substance and the same deserves to be dismissed.

Hence, the Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.



(ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.)               (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)


habeeb/ysp