ABHIJEET MANOHAR MUDRALE AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, DEPT. OF SCHOOL EDU. AND SPORTS AND ORS

                                                                   WP-12213-2025 J C2.doc



                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                         WRIT PETITION NO. 12213 OF 2025

                   1. Abhijeet Manohar Mudrale
                   Age- 45 years, Occu-Service,
                   R/o. Tulsi Nivas Building, B Wing,
SNEHA
NITIN              Flat No. 101, Near Ridhi Sidhi building,
CHAVAN
Digitally signed
by SNEHA           Pasalpe Village,
NITIN CHAVAN
Date: 2026.09.01
18:38:57 +0530     Tq. Panvel, Dist. Raigad -410 221

                   2. Devidas Tulshiram Patil
                   Age-52 years, Occu - Service,
                   R/o. Lake View CHS, A. 103, Chikhale,
                   Tq. Panvel, Dist. Raigad-410 221.

                   3. Darshana Narayan Gavand
                   Age-47 years, Occu - Service,
                   R/o. B-301, Jindal Avenue, Near Prant Office,
                   Sai Nagar-Karnala Sports Road, Old Panvel,
                   Dist. Raigad-410 206.
                                                                        ... Petitioners
                                Versus
                   1. The State of Maharashtra,
                   Department of School Education and Sports,
                   Through its Secretary,
                   Mantralaya, Mumbai.


                   2. Deputy Director, Education
                   Department of Education,
                   Mumbai Division,

                   3. The Education Officer (Secondary)
                   Zilla Parishad, Raigad                               ...Respondents




                   Navnath Waghmare                                                         1
                                                        WP-12213-2025 J C2.doc



                                       ****
Ms. Priya Gondhalekar a/w Adv Stawan Telgote i/b Mr. Ajay Rupanwar and
Ms. Anushka Patil for the Petitioners.
Mr. A. R. Deolekar AGP for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3/State.
                                       ****
                                CORAM : G. S. KULKARNI AND
                                              M. M. SATHAYE, JJ.
                         RESERVED ON : 06th AUGUST 2026
                     PRONOUNCED ON : 01st SEPTEMBER 2026

JUDGMENT (Per M. M. Sathaye J.)

1.      Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned AGP waives service on

behalf of Respondents. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

2.      Petitioners are seeking direction holding them entitled to the Old

Pension Scheme ('OPS' for short) as per the Maharashtra Civil Services

(Pension) Rules, 1982 and consequent directions to Respondents to take all

necessary steps for grant of such OPS to Petitioners.

                                   BACKGROUND

3.      Case of the Petitioners is as under. That Petitioner No.1 was appointed

as Assistant Teacher, Petitioner No.2 as Junior Clerk and Petitioner No.3 as

Computer Superintendent in Vijay Army School and Junior College on

09.11.2005. That they were appointed by participating in the selection process

which was undertaken pursuant to advertisement issued in local newspaper on

22.05.2005. That they were granted appointment after interview conducted by

the appointing committee. Petitioners’ appointments have been duly approved



Navnath Waghmare                                                                 2
                                                          WP-12213-2025 J C2.doc



by the concerned Education Officer, on 100% grant in aid. That since their

recruitment process has admittedly started prior to cut-off date of 01.11.2005,

pursuant to notification dated 02.02.2024 issued by Finance Department of

the State, the Petitioners had applied to concerned educational institute opting

for OPS and their proposal was also forwarded to concerned Education Officer,

but it was not considered. Hence the petition is filed.

                                    SUBMISSIONS

4.      Learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that in above backdrop,

the Petitioners filed representation on 25.06.2025 with the Respondent No.1

praying for benefit of OPS. She contended that only Respondent No.1 (School

Education and Sports Department) has not formulated scheme for employees

like Petitioners to opt for OPS and all other departments have formulated such

scheme and this amounts unreasonable discrimination. She submitted that

Petitioners are clearly covered by the policy inasmuch as their recruitment

process admittedly started prior to said cut-off date and therefore, they are

entitled to opt for OPS. She relied upon the following Judgments and

Government Resolutions (GR) and notification in support of her case:

        (i) Deshmukh Dilipkumar Bhagwan Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR
        Online 2019 Bom 1508.
        (ii) Rahul Laxmikant Kontamwar and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and
        Ors in Writ Petition No. 3715 of 2022 and others, Judgment dated
        28.06.2023.
        (iii) Vasantrao Naik Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth Through its


Navnath Waghmare                                                                   3
                                                     WP-12213-2025 J C2.doc



        Registrar Vs. Ganpat Maroti Sutare and Anr. 2024 SCC OnLine Bom
        5169.
        (iv) Dr. Rajendra Shankar Mahamuni Vs. Fergusson College, Pune and
        Ors. in Writ Petition No. 8292 of 2024, Judgment dated 03.09.2025.
        (v) GR issued by the Finance Department, dated 12.01.2007 referring to
        GR dated 31.10.2005, 18.08.2009 and 02.02.2024;
        (vi) GR issued by the Rural Development Department dated
        01.10.2024;
        (vii) GR issued by the Department of School Education and Sports,
        dated 28.04.2025
        (viii) GR issued by the Revenue and Forest Department dated
        20.05.2025.
5.      On the other hand, learned AGP has supported the impugned order

contending inter alia that specific instructions for school staff (teaching and

non-teaching) is not available and for that reason, the Petitioners’ request can

not be accepted.

                           REASONS AND CONCLUSION

6.      When the petition was filed, the representation of Petitioners was

pending. However, the Respondent No.3 Education Officer has filed affidavit-

in-reply placing on record that on 03.12.2025, Petitioners’ representation was

decided by him under impression that he has the authority, however, on

realising that the authority vests in Deputy Director of Education, he has

recalled order dated 03.12.2025 and has placed the matter before the concerned

Deputy Director. Both, the order of recall as well as communication placing the

matter before the Deputy Director, are placed on record.

Navnath Waghmare                                                              4
                                                       WP-12213-2025 J C2.doc



7.      Learned counsel for the Petitioners has placed on record an order dated

23.04.2026 passed by the Divisional Deputy Director, Mumbai which shows

that the Petitioners’ representation is rejected, holding that the Petitioners being

appointed after 01.11.2005, they are entitled to Defined Contributory Pension

Scheme (‘DCPS’ for short) and not OPS.

8.      We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

9.      So far as the judgment of Deshmukh Dilipkumar Bhagwan (Supra) is

concerned, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court was considering whether the

employees appointed prior to 01.11.2005 however their schools were not

receiving 100% grant-in-aid from Government as on 01.11.2005, would be

governed by DCPS or OPS. The Division Bench has held that employees who

were appointed prior to 01.11.2005 in aided recognized primary, secondary

schools and colleges which were receiving less than 100% grant-in-aid as on

01.11.2005, would be governed by DCPS. It was further held that similar will

be situation of employees who were appointed prior to 01.11.2005 in institutes

which were receiving less than 100% grant-in-aid as on 01.11.2005 but which

became 100% aided before 29.11.2010. It was also held that in the context of

right of an employee of institutes to receive pensionary benefits and the

corresponding liability of the Government, only such institutes which are

receiving 100% grant-in-aid can also be termed as ‘aided institutions’.

        It is therefore, clear that the issue involved in the said judgment was



Navnath Waghmare                                                                5
                                                     WP-12213-2025 J C2.doc



different than present issue. Therefore, said judgment will not advance case of

the Petitioners.

10.     In Rahul Laxmikant Kontamwar (Supra) while deciding a batch of writ

petitions, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Nagpur Bench) considered the

case of one Gram Sevak and two Shikshan Sevaks who were appointed after

01.11.2005 but who had participated in the recruitment process pursuant to

advertisement issued before 01.11.2005. While considering their case, this

Court considered GR dated 31.10.2005 which was policy decision to adopt

provisions of DCPS to all Government servants. Relying on the Judgment of

Khilari Rajendra Eknath and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. in

Writ Petition No. 2270 of 2021 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court,

it is held that those Petitioners shall be entitled to be governed by OPS. This

Judgment supports the case of the present Petitioners, who are teaching and

non-teaching staff of Vijay Army School and Junior College.

11.     In Vasantrao Naik Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth (Supra), Full Bench

of this Court was considering the following issue under reference :

        "The Hon'ble The Chief Justice has been pleased to refer the following
        issue for its answer by this Full Bench:-
                "While considering the applicability of either the old Pension
            scheme or the Defined Contributory Pension Scheme, whether the
            word "नि युक्ती" ( appointment) as set out in the Government
            Resolution dated 31.10.2005 in the State language Marathi, would be
            decisive or whether the word "recruitment" (भरती प्रनि या) appearing
            in the English version of the Government Resolution dated
            31.10.2005, should apply to the situation, considering Sub-Rule (2)


Navnath Waghmare                                                              6
                                                     WP-12213-2025 J C2.doc



            of Rule 2 of the M.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1982?"
12.     During hearing, the Full Bench was shown notification dated

02.02.2024 issued by the Government whereunder it is decided that, with a

view to extend the benefits of the Maharashtra Civil Services ( Pension) Rules,

1982, the Maharashtra Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1984

and the General Provident Fund Rules to the Government Officers and

Employees who have resumed after 01.11.2005 but the advertisement was

published for recruitment prior to 01.11.2005, one time option is made

available, granting 6 months time, from the date of the notification to exercise

such option. Full Bench considered that ex facie, notification dated 02.02.2024

gives an opportunity to the government officers and employees who had

undertaken a recruitment process commenced prior to 01.11.2005, but their

appointment orders have been issued after said date, to exercise the option. Full

Bench held that since this notification does not admit of any exception, it

would be applicable to all similarly placed employees.

        This judgment also clearly support the case of the Petitioners that they

ought to have been given an option to opt for old pension scheme.

13.     In Rajendra Shankar Mahamuni (Supra), a Co-ordinate Bench of this

Court considered the case of Assistant Professor having similar case of

participating in recruitment process pursuant to advertisement prior to

01.11.2005 and appointment order after the said date. After considering various

judgments, the Division Bench allowed the petition directing grant of old


Navnath Waghmare                                                              7
                                                      WP-12213-2025 J C2.doc



pension scheme to the Petitioners therein.

14.     Returning to the present case, it is not disputed that the Petitioners’

appointment were approved on 100% grant-in-aid post; therefore, it is

necessary to give them option to choose between OPS and DCPS as per

notification dated 02.02.2024. In the present case, the Petitioners had filed

applications to the concerned institute on 24.06.2024, 29.06.2024 and

01.07.2025 opting for old pension scheme and the institute has forwarded the

proposal with necessary documents to the Education Officer on 07.04.2024

and 05.08.2024. This fact is brought to the notice of the concerned Education

Officer by letter dated 20.05.2025, a copy of which is produced by Education

Officer himself along with reply.

15.     In such circumstances, when the decision taken by the Deputy Director

of Education, Mumbai Division dated 23.04.2026 is perused, it is seen that the

concerned Deputy Director has held that no directions are available from the

Department of School Education and Sports in the respect of teaching and non-

teaching staff. GR dated 28.04.2025 is referred taking stand that it is applicable

to Lecturers and Principals only, but not to teaching and non-teaching staff such

as Petitioners. Therefore, Petitioners are held not entitled to OPS. Merely

because no directions are received from the Department of School Education

and Sports, representation has been rejected perversely, without considering the

effect of Notification dated 02.02.2024 and a clear view taken by Full Bench of

this Court in Vasantrao Naik Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth (Supra).


Navnath Waghmare                                                               8
                                                       WP-12213-2025 J C2.doc



16.     In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and for reasons recorded above,

interference is necessary.

17.     Writ Petition is therefore allowed in terms of prayer clause (B) which

reads as under:

        "B] By issuing a writ of mandamus or any other writ of like nature,
        this Hon'ble Court be pleased to hold that the Petitioners are entitled for
        old pension scheme and the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules,
        1982 are applicable for the Petitioners and consequently direct the
        Respondents to take all necessary steps to grant the old pension scheme
        to the Petitioners."


18.     Rule is made absolute and Writ Petition is disposed of in above terms.

No order as to costs.

19.     All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed QR

verifiable copy of this order.




  (M. M. SATHAYE, J.)                              (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)




Navnath Waghmare                                                                9