Bombay High Court
BABASAHEB TULSHIRAM SARUK AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
Clause 3 of the 13‑Oct‑2016 Government Resolution is discriminatory and violative of Article 14, entitling the petitioners to the subject‑teacher pay scale and arrears.
Summary
The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, considered two writ petitions challenging Clause 3 of a Government Resolution dated 13‑10‑2016, which denied subject‑teacher pay scale benefits to teachers of classes 6‑8. Relying on the Nagpur Bench decision in Ganesh Mahadeo Asekar v. State of Maharashtra, the Court held that the clause was discriminatory and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. Consequently, the impugned orders against the petitioners were quashed. The Court directed the respective Zilla Parishads to grant the subject‑teacher pay scale to eligible teachers from the date of appointment or from the date they acquired the requisite qualification, and to pay any arrears within eight weeks. The writ petitions were allowed and the matters disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether Clause 3 of the Government Resolution dated 13‑10‑2016 violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to the subject‑teacher pay scale and related arrears.
- Whether the earlier orders passed against the petitioners should be quashed.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 14
Subjects
- Discrimination
- Article 14
- Subject teacher pay scale
- Zilla Parishad
- Government Resolution
- Constitutional law
- Service matters
- Arrears
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:41426-DB
1 35.WP.11430.26.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 11430 OF 2026
BABASAHEB TULSHIRAM SARUK AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11965 OF 2026
DILIP NAMDEO JAYBHAYE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sahebrao A. Nagarsoge
AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.R. Wakale and Mr. N.D. Batule
Advocate for Respondent Nos.5 and 6 : Mr. P.D. Suryawanshi
...
CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
DATE : 07.09.2026
PER COURT:
1. Indisputably the issue raised in these petitions is squarely
covered by the decision of this Court at Nagpur Bench in Writ Petition
No.5563/2022 (Ganesh Mahadeo Asekar and others Vs. The State of
Maharashtra).
2. By the decision in the said matter Clause 3 of Government
Resolution dated 13.10.2016 is declared as discriminatory and
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as far as the
2 35.WP.11430.26.odt
petitioners therein are concerned. Since the petitioners herein are
similarly circumstanced, for the reasons recorded in the Ganesh
Mahadeo Asekar (supra), we are inclined to follow the same order :
ORDER
(a) We declare that Clause 3 of the Government Resolution
dated 13.10.2016 as discriminatory and violative of Article
14 of the Constitution of India as far as the petitioners are
concerned. As such, the impugned orders passed in cases of
these petitioners are quashed and set aside.
(b) We further direct the respondents Zilla Parishads to grant
the benefit of subject teacher pay scale to those petitioners
who are already working as a subject teacher of Classes 6 to
8 from the date of appointment on the post of subject
teacher.
(c) We also direct the respondents Zilla Parishads that the
petitioners, who have acquired the said requisite
qualification during their service would be entitled to
subject teacher pay scale from the date of acquiring such
qualification.
(d) We also direct the respondents Zilla Parishads to pay
arrears, if any, to the petitioners from the date of
appointment or date of acquiring qualification as the case
3 35.WP.11430.26.odt
may be, within eight weeks from the date of this order.
3. The Writ Petitions are allowed in terms of the above directions
and disposed of.
(ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)
habeeb/
Checking your session…