Bombay High Court

DAMODHAR GANPATRAO GAIKWADversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: VIBHA KANKANWADI HITEN S VENEGAVKAR

Holding

The writ petition is dismissed.

Summary

The petitioner, a former primary teacher, sought a writ of mandamus directing the education authorities to fix his salary and grant retirement benefits as per the 6th and 7th Pay Commissions for the period 19 January 2006 to 1 May 2018. He claimed that his D.Ed. degree was cancelled in 2005, he challenged that cancellation in Writ Petition No.571 of 2006 (which was dismissed), and later relied on a coordinate bench order in 2010 that set aside similar cancellations for other petitioners. The petitioner argued that, like those similarly situated, he is entitled to the pay fixation and benefits, and he filed the present petition after making representations in 2017, 2020, 2023 and 2025 without receiving a response. The Court observed that the petitioner had accepted the dismissal of his earlier writ, had not sought review, and had delayed seeking relief for more than a decade, rendering the petition unsuitable for exercise of powers under Article 226. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to make a fresh, detailed representation to the respondents for consideration. The order also allowed the respondents two months to decide on any such fresh representation.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner is entitled to salary fixation and retirement benefits under the 6th and 7th Pay Commissions despite the dismissal of his earlier writ challenging the cancellation of his D.Ed. degree.
Whether the High Court can entertain the writ petition under Article 226 given the delay and the petitioner’s apparent acceptance of the earlier dismissal.
Whether the petitioner must first make a fresh representation before the Court can grant the relief sought.

Subjects

salary fixation
pay commission
retirement benefits
writ of mandamus
Article 226
delay
public service
education department
D.Ed. cancellation

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:4819-DB

wp-13403-2025 with ca.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.13403 OF 2025

Damodhar s/o Ganpatrao Gaikwad .. Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary
School Education and Sports
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32.

2. The Deputy Director of Education,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.

3. The Education Officer (Primary),
Jalna, District Jalna.

4. The Zilla Parishad, Jalna,
Through its Chief Executive Officer,
Primary Education Department,
Jalna, District Jalna.

5. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Samaj
Seva Mandal, Jalna,
Through its Secretary,
Jalna, District Jalna.

6. Parivartan Primary School,
Through Headmaster, Jalna,
District Jalna. .. Respondents
...
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.166 OF 2026
IN WP/13403/2025

…
Mr. Swapnil Patunkar, Advocate h/f M/s. J. P. Legal Associates, Advocate for the
petitioner.
Mr. S. B. Narwade, AGP for the respondent Nos.1 and 2/State.
...

[1]
wp-13403-2025 with ca.odt

CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &
HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.

DATE : 08 JANUARY 2026

ORDER (Per Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.) :-

. Civil Application No.166 of 2026 has been filed for production of

documents. For the reasons mentioned in the Civil Application, Civil

Application No.166 of 2026 stands allowed and disposed of.

2. Present petition has been filed for following reliefs :-

“C) By issuing the Writ of Mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, directions or any other order in the
likewise nature the respondent Nos.2 to 5 may kindly be
directed to fix the salary of the petitioner as per the 6 th and
7th pay commission from 19.01.2006 to 01.05.2018.

D) By issuing the writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, directions or any other order in the
likewise nature the respondent Nos.2 to 5 may kindly be
directed to grant of retirement benefits/consequential
benefits or arrears as per 6th and 7th pay commission from
19.01.2006 to 01.05.2018.”

3. The petitioner has come with the case that after completing his

SSC, he was appointed as untrained primary teacher in respondent No.5

school on 11.06.1993. Thereafter, he was made permanent vide order

[2]
wp-13403-2025 with ca.odt

dated 18.06.1994 in respondent No.6 school. His services as untrained

primary teacher were approved by respondent No.3 from time to time.

According to the petitioner, he completed D.Ed. in 2005 and became

trained teacher and his services in that capacity came to be approved

with effect from 07.02.2005, however, he was issued with a show cause

notice on 26.07.2005 for cancellation of postal D.Ed. admission

purported to be issued on the ground of illegalities by the Maharashtra

State Educational Research and Training Council, Pune. The petitioner

filed reply to the show cause notice and by order dated 31.12.2005, the

said institution cancelled his D.Ed. degree. The petitioner had filed Writ

Petition No.571 of 2006 challenging the action of cancellation of his

postal D.Ed. degree and then he had prayed for interim stay to the

operation and implementation of the order dated 31.12.2005. This Court

had granted status quo by order dated 25.01.2006, however, the said writ

petition came to be dismissed. According to the petitioner, a Coordinate

Bench of this Court in bunch of Writ Petitions bearing No.610 of 2006

and companion matters had set aside the impugned orders passed by the

authorities cancelling the admission of those petitioners and also

observed that all the consequences would follow. The said order came to

be passed on 07.12.2010. Then the petitioner states that Criminal Writ

Petition No.47 of 2004 was filed alleging fraud in potal D.Ed. and to take

[3]
wp-13403-2025 with ca.odt

action against those erring persons. This Court by order dated

09.03.2020 disposed of the said writ petition as has become infructuous.

The petitioner got retired by superannuation on 31.05.2018 though he

was getting salary till his retirement; retiral benefits and pension was not

granted to him. Benefit of 6 th and 7th pay commission and the pay

fixation also has not been granted by the respondent authorities to the

petitioner. Therefore, he made several representations on 19.09.2017,

07.09.2020, 08.06.2023 and 06.01.2025 to respondent Nos.2 and 3 and

prayed for fixation of pay as per 6 th and 7th pay commission and for grant

of retiral benefits. When there is no response, he has filed the present

petition.

4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has taken us through the entire

documents and reiterated the contentions in the pleadings. He submits

that when similarly situated persons were granted benefit, the petitioner

is also entitled to get the same.

5. Here, it is to be noted that though in several matters, this Court

had allowed the writ petitions filed and set aside the orders of

cancellation of D.Ed. admissions of those petitioners, yet the fact remains

is that the petitioner himself in his pleading has stated that he had

challenged the action of cancellation of postal D.Ed. passed against him

[4]
wp-13403-2025 with ca.odt

in Writ Petition No.571 of 2006. His Writ Petition No.571 of 2006 came

to be dismissed. He has not stated that he had challenged the said order

of dismissal before Hon’ble Supreme Court or not. He has also not stated

that after the bunch of Writ Petitions bearing No.610 of 2006 with

companion matters came to be allowed on 07.12.2010, whether he had

approached this Court for review. His total inaction and acceptance of

the decision in his petition i.e. Writ Petition No.571 of 2006 is a major

hurdle.

6. Another fact in view of the prayer clause is to direct respondent

Nos.2 and 3 to fix the salary of the petitioner as per 6 th and 7th pay

commission from 19.01.2006 to 01.05.2018. His first representation

appears to be dated 19.09.2017. When he is seeking pay fixation from

19.01.2006; till 19.09.2017 why he had kept mum, is a question. There

is absolutely no reason as to why he is coming before this Court belatedly.

There is no prayer for directions to respondent Nos.2 to 5 to decide the

representation of the petitioner and, therefore, when the petitioner has

accepted the verdict, we do not find this to be a fit case where we should

exercise our powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

7. The writ petition stands dismissed, however, if a fresh

representation is made giving all the details to respondent Nos.2 to 5,

[5]
wp-13403-2025 with ca.odt

then respondent Nos.2 to 5 to consider the same and take a decision on

the same within a period of two months from the date of such

representation.

[ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ]
JUDGE JUDGE

scm

[6]

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…