Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

BEBISAROJA TUKARAM BABAR AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR SECRETARY AND OTHERS

Disposal
DISPOSED OFF

Holding

Clause 3 of the 13‑October‑2016 Government Resolution is discriminatory and violative of Article 14, and must be struck down, entitling the petitioners to the subject‑teacher pay scale with arrears.

Summary

The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, considered Writ Petitions 12893 and 12878 of 2026 challenging Clause 3 of the Government Resolution dated 13 October 2016, which denied subject‑teacher pay scale benefits to certain teachers. Relying on the Nagpur Bench decision in Ganesh Mahadeo Asekar v. State of Maharashtra (W.P. No. 5563 of 2022), the Court held that the clause was discriminatory and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. Consequently, the Court declared the clause void, quashed the impugned orders, and directed the Zilla Parishads to grant the subject‑teacher pay scale to petitioners from the date of their appointment or from the date they acquired the requisite qualification. The Court also ordered payment of any arrears within eight weeks. The writ petitions were allowed and disposed of.

Issues considered

  • Whether Clause 3 of the Government Resolution dated 13‑10‑2016 is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
  • Whether petitioners are entitled to the subject‑teacher pay scale and arrears thereof.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • discrimination
  • Article 14
  • subject teacher pay scale
  • government resolution
  • Zilla Parishad
  • writ petition
  • equal protection
  • Maharashtra

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:44475-DB


                                               1                  905-WP-12810-26.odt


                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                           905 WRIT PETITION NO. 12810 OF 2026

                            BEBISAROJA TUKARAM BABAR AND OTHERS
                                             VERSUS
               THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS
                                                 ...
              Mr. Balaji S. Shinde, Advocate for the Petitioner
              Mr. N. D. Batule, AGP for Respondents/State
              Mr. Anup R. Nikam, Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 to 5
                                                 …
                              WRIT PETITION NO. 12893 OF 2026

                            PRABHAKAR NAMDEO GHUGE AND OTHERS
                                             VERSUS
               THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS
                                                 ...
              Mr. Balaji S. Shinde, Advocate for the Petitioner
              Mr. B. B. Bhise, AGP for Respondents/State
              Mr. Suhas B. Ghute, Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 to 5
                                                 …
                              WRIT PETITION NO. 12878 OF 2026

                            DINESH DASHRATH THORAT AND OTHERS
                                             VERSUS
               THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS
                                               ...
              Mr. S. G. Munde, Advocate for the Petitioner
              Mr. N. D. Batule, AGP for Respondents/State
              Mr. Avinash D. Aghav, Advocate for Respondent No.5
                                               ...

                                     CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
                                             ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
                                       DATE : 23rd SEPTEMBER, 2026

              PER COURT :

              1.           Writ Petition Nos. 12893 of 2026 and 12878 of 2026 are

              not on board. Upon mentioning taken on board.


              2.           Indisputably the issue raised in these petitions is



              SVH
                                      2                  905-WP-12810-26.odt


squarely covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this

Court at Nagpur in Writ Petition No.5563 of 2022 (Ganesh

Mahadeo Asekar and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra)

decided vide judgment dated 08/05/2026.


3.           In view of the decision in Ganesh Mahadeo Asekar

(supra)    declaring   clause   3    of   Government   Resolution    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 Mahadeo Asekar (supra), we are

inclined to pass the following 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




SVH
                                      3                    905-WP-12810-26.odt


            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

            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.)




SVH


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.