SUDHIR SHANKAR WAGHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, HIGHER AND EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT AND ORS.

                                                                                 20_WP_1325_2021.DOC



                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                              WRIT PETITION NO.1325 OF 2021

                      Sudhir Shankar Wagh
                      Age:67 years, Occupation: Nil
                      B-6/6, Raksha Lekha Housing Society,
                      Gajendra Nagar, Near Datt Wadi,
                      Dist. - Pune – 411 030.                                   ...Petitioner

                                     Versus

                      1.       The State Of Maharashta
PRASAD
RAJENDRASING
                               through the Secretary, Higher and Technical
RAJPUT
                               Eduation and Employment Department Mantralaya,
Digitally signed by
PRASAD
RAJENDRASING
                               Mumbai 400032
RAJPUT
Date: 2026.09.05
13:28:11 +0530
                      2.       The Director of Technical Education,
                               Maharashtra State 3, Mahapalika Marg,
                               Mumbai – 400001

                      3.       All India Council for Technical Education
                               (A.I.C.T.E.) (through Regional Officer
                               Western Region Office, Industrial Assurance
                               Buidling, 2nd Floor, Veer Nariman Road,
                               Churchgate, Mumbai 400020

                      4.       Savitribai Phule,
                               Pune University,
                               (through the Registrar),
                               Ganeshkhind Road, Pune

                      5.       D.Y. Patil Pratishthan
                               through its Secretary,
                               Having office at 1216A, Tarabai Park,
                               Kolhapur, Dist. Kolhapur

                      6.       Principal,
                               D.Y. Patil College of Engineering,
                               Sector No. 29, Nigdi-Pradhikaran,
                               Akurdi, Pune – 411 044.                          ...Respondents




                                                          Page 1 of 5
                      Prasad
                                                                            20_WP_1325_2021.DOC



                                             _______
Mr. Onkar Wable a/w Dattatray Devkar, for Petitioner.
Mr. P.P. Kakde, Addl. GP a/w Nisha M. Mehra, AGP for Respondent – State.
Mr. Rajendra Anbhule, for Respondent No.4.
Mr. Akshay Patil a/w Ganesh Inamdar, Akshay Kamble and Neha Patil i/by Vivaka
     Partners, for Respondent Nos.5 and 6.
                                   _______

                                  CORAM:          G. S. KULKARNI &
                                                  DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.

                                  DATE:           31st AUGUST 2026

P.C.

1.        By the present Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

the Petitioner has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:

         “a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to exercise the powers vested in it under Article
         226 of the Constitution of India and to issue a Writ of Mandamus and / or a Writ in
         the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ and direction, directing
         Respondent Nos. 5 to 6 to implement the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court
         in Writ Petition No. 1262 of 2018 dated 7th September, 2018 and the order passed
         by the Grievance Committee in Application 2/2014 dated 26.4.2019 forthwith and
         the Respondent No.5 and 6 may be directed to pay the arrears of the 6th pay
         commission to the Petitioner along with interest thereupon w.e.f 1.1.2006.
         b) Cost of the petition may be provided for the petitioner.
         c) Such order and further reliefs that may be necessary may kindly be passed.”

2.        We have heard learned Counsel for the parties on the earlier occasion. The

grievance of the Petitioner that he is being deprived of the benefit of the orders

passed by the Grievance Committee of the University which has attained finality

by the dismissal of the writ petition as also the Special Leave Petition. A detailed

order dated 11.08.2026 passed on the present proceedings on the earlier occasion is

required to be noted, which reads thus:

         “1. The grievance of the petitioner is that the order dated 26 April 2019 passed by
         the Grievance Committee constituted under Section 79 of the Maharashtra Public
         Universities Act, 2016, which is a statutory authority, has not been implemented by
         respondent Nos.5 and 6.


                                          Page 2 of 5
Prasad
                                                                              20_WP_1325_2021.DOC



         2. We find from the record that respondent Nos.5 and 6 have filed Writ Petition
         No.2982 of 2025 in this Court, challenging the said order passed by the Grievance
         Committee. The said petition was dismissed by an order dated 3 March 2025. We
         find that the decision of this Court passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing
         the petition, was assailed before the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C)
         No.12488 of 2025 which came to be dismissed by the Supreme Court by an order
         dated 9 May 2025. Also there was a review petition being Stamp No.25112 of
         2025, which was filed seeking review of the order, which came to be dismissed by
         the learned Single Judge by an order dated 28 July 2026. In these circumstances,
         the proceedings are before us.
         3. We find from the record that the petitioner has moved before the Grievance
         Committee for arrears of salary amounting to Rs.26,26,253/-, leave encashment of
         Rs.11,32,250/- and salary of last month of service Rs.87,658/-, total amount of
         Rs.38,46,161/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12%. The said claim was accepted by
         the Grievance Redressal Committee by an order in question dated 26 April 2019.
         However, almost for a period of seven years, the petitioner is engaged in the
         litigation by respondent Nos.5 and 6 and despite the proceedings having attained
         finality upon dismissal of the SLP by the Supreme Court, the petitioner is still
         required to litigate. In these circumstances, we have no manner of doubt that the
         petitioner cannot be relegated to proceedings to execute the orders passed by the
         Grievance Committee, and the payment of such dues cannot be delayed, more
         particularly, considering that the petitioner is a retired employee.
         4. In these circumstances, we direct respondent Nos.5 and 6 to deposit in this Court
         within 10 days from today, an amount of Rs.38,46,161/- alongwith the interest
         calculated with effect from 13 January 2014 at the rate of 10% as granted by the co-
         ordinate Bench of this Court in the proceedings of Writ Petition (l) No.36169 of
         2024 (Narayari Pundalik Pathade vs. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai)
         decided on 11 March 2025. There shall not be any further extension for respondent
         Nos.5 and 6 to deposit the said amount in the Court.
         5. List this proceeding on 24 August 2026. (FOB)
         6. Liberty to mention if the amount is deposited at an earlier date, and intimation of
         the same be given to the Advocate for the petitioner.”

3.         We find from the record that the Petitioner had approached the Grievance

Committee on 13.01.2014, which is almost 12 years back praying for the following

reliefs:

         “a. The Respondents be directed to pay up to this plaint the amount money claim i.e.
         arrear of salary of Rs. 26,26,253/- encashment of leaves Rs.11,32,250/- and salary of
         last month of service i.e. Rs. 87,658/-; and with interest of Rs.12% p.a. from the date
         of retirement to till the date of payment.
         b. Cost of this suit from Respondents.
         c. Any other just and equitable order in the interest of justice may kindly be passed.”

4.         The proceedings were contested before the Grievance Committee of the

University by the Respondent – Management. Ultimately, by an order dated

26.04.2019, the Grievance Committee exercising powers under Section 79 of the



                                           Page 3 of 5
Prasad
                                                                            20_WP_1325_2021.DOC



Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 directed that the Respondent –

Management shall make payment of the arrears of the salary as per the sixth pay

commission to the Petitioner within a period of 180 days from the date of the said

order.

(official translation)

         “ORDER :—
                    The D. Y. Patil College of Engineering, Akurdi, Pune, an Institution/College run
         by the D. Y. Patil Pratishthan, shall pay to the Complainant Prof. Sudhir Shankar Wagh,
         within a period of two months, the arrears of the amount of difference in salary payable to
         him in accordance with the Recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission as well as the
         amount payable towards encashment of the Earned Leave of maximum 180 days standing
         to his credit.”

5.        The said order passed by the Grievance Committee was assailed by the

Respondent – Management before this Court in proceedings of Writ Petition

No.2982 of 2025 which came to be dismissed by the judgment and order dated

03.03.2025 by the learned Single Judge. The said order was challenged by the

Respondent – Management before the Supreme Court in the proceedings of

Special Leave Petition (SLP) No.12488 of 2025 which came to be dismissed. We

find from the record that although no liberty was granted by the Supreme Court to

the Respondent – Management to approach this Court in a review petition, the

review petition was later on filed by the Respondent – Management being Review

Petition (St.) No.25112 of 2025 praying the review of the said order dated

23.03.2025. This review petition also came to be rejected by order dated

28.07.2026. Thus, the proceedings have now attained finality insofar as the

grievance and entitlement of the amounts as granted to the Petitioner by the

Grievance Committee are concerned.

6.        We find that in compliance of paragraph No.5 of the order dated

                                          Page 4 of 5
Prasad
                                                                   20_WP_1325_2021.DOC



11.08.2025 passed by this Court (surpa) the Respondent – Management has

deposited the amounts in this Court. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we

are of the opinion that although Mr. Patil, learned Counsel for the Respondent –

Management has certain reservations in respect of calculation of interest, we are of

the opinion that considering the fact that the Petitioner is already in litigation since

the year 2014 including to contest the proceedings before the Supreme Court

which is now rejected, the Petitioner would become entitled for such reasonable

interest. We are accordingly of the opinion that the Petitioner ought to be

permitted to withdraw the amounts as deposited by the Respondent –

Management in this Court. Let the said amounts be released in favour of the

Petitioner by the Registry on presentation of this order.

7.       Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of. No costs.

8.       At this stage, we are informed by Mr. Patil, that his clients intend to assail

the order dated 28.07.2026, passed by the learned Single Judge on the review

petition. We do not express any opinion.



(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J)                                      (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)




                                    Page 5 of 5
Prasad