Bombay High Court

RAMESH TUKARAM BANKAR AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE SECRETARY AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

Clause 3 of the Government Circular dated 13‑10‑2016 is discriminatory and violative of Article 14, rendering the impugned orders void.

Summary

The High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, considered two writ petitions filed by subject teachers challenging Clause 3 of a Government Circular dated 13‑10‑2016. Relying on the coordinate bench decision in Ganesh Mahadeo Asekar v. State of Maharashtra (W.P. No. 5563/2022), 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 Zilla Parishads to grant the subject‑teacher pay scale to the petitioners from the date of their appointment or from the date they acquired the requisite qualification, and to pay any arrears within eight weeks. The writ petitions were allowed and disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether Clause 3 of the Government Circular dated 13‑10‑2016 is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Whether subject teachers appointed before acquiring the requisite qualification are entitled to the subject‑teacher pay scale.
Whether the petitioners are entitled to arrears of pay from the date of appointment or qualification.

Subjects

Article 14
Discrimination
Government Circular
Subject Teacher Pay Scale
Arrears of Pay
Zilla Parishad
Constitutional Law
Service Matters

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:41613-DB


                                             {1}                     6-wp-11824-2026

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                              6 WRIT PETITION NO. 11824 OF 2026

                              Vithal Narayan Mukhedkar And Others
                                            VERSUS
                              The State Of Maharashtra And Others

                                                 ...
              Mr. Rahul Bagul, Advocate for the Petitioners
              Mr. S.R. Wakle, AGP for State
              Mr. R.K. Ingole, Advocate for Respondents No. 4 to 6

                               WRIT PETITION NO. 12034 OF 2026

                              Ramesh Tukaram Bankar And Others
                                            VERSUS
                              The State Of Maharashtra And Others

              Mr. R.B. Narvade Patil, Advocate for the Petitioners
              Mr. M.K. Goyanka, AGP for State
              Mr. R.K. Ingole, Advocate for Respondents No. 4 to 6

                                              .......

                                    CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
                                             ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.


                                       DATE : 08th SEPTEMBER, 2026
              PER COURT :

              1.   Writ Petitions No. 12034 of 2026 is not on board. Upon

              mentioning same is taken on board.


              2.   The issue raised in these petitions is squarely covered by the

              decision of the coordinate Bench of this Court at Nagpur in Writ

              Petition No.5563/2022 (Ganesh Mahadeo Asekar and others vs. The
                                  {2}                       6-wp-11824-2026

State of Maharashtra) decided vide judgment dated 08.05.2026.


3.    In view of the decision in Ganesh Asekar (supra) declaring clause

3 of Government Circular dated 13.10.2016 as discriminatory and

violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as far as the

petitioners therein are concerned and since the petitioners herein are

similarly situated, for the reasons recorded in Ganesh Asekar (supra),

we are inclined to pass the following order :-

                                  ORDER

(a) We declare that Clause 3 of the Government Circular 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
                                      {3}                   6-wp-11824-2026

       acquiring qualification as the case may be, within eight weeks
       from the date of this order.



4.       The Writ Petitions are allowed in terms of the above directions

and disposed of.




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




Bhagyawant Punde

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…