Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

DNYANDEO RAVSAHEB PAGARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT, AND ORS

Decided
Disposal
Disposed Off

Holding

The Court ordered the respondents to decide the pending representation within six weeks, keeping all contentions open, without adjudicating the pension entitlement claim.

Summary

The petitioner, Dnyandeo Ravsaheb Pagar, filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking recognition that he was recruited before 1 November 2005 and thus entitled to benefits under the Maharashtra Civil Service (Pension) Rules 1982, the Commutation of Pension Rules 1984, and the General Provident Fund Scheme. He also requested a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to extend these benefits. The petitioner highlighted a pending representation dated 23 March 2024 before the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation, Nashik. The Court noted the pending representation and, without deciding the substantive pension claim, ordered the respondents (Nos. 4 & 5) to decide the representation within six weeks, keeping all parties' contentions open. The petition was disposed of on these terms with no costs awarded.

Issues considered

  • Whether the petitioner is entitled to benefits under the old pension scheme based on his recruitment date.
  • Whether the respondents should be directed to extend pension and GPF benefits to the petitioner.

Subjects

  • pension
  • old pension scheme
  • Article 226
  • writ of mandamus
  • representation
  • Maharashtra Civil Service Rules
  • high court

Judgment

         Digitally
         signed by
         PRASHANT
PRASHANT VILAS
                                                                                            12-WP-18615-2024.DOC
VILAS    RANE
RANE     Date:
         2026.08.21
         10:33:53
         +0530




                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                     WRIT PETITION NO. 18615 OF 2024

            Dnyandeo Ravsaheb Pagar                                                     ...Petitioner
                   Versus
            State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary
            Finance Department, And Ors.                                                ...Respondents

                                                _______
            Mr. Govind Bhagwanrao Solanke, for Petitioner.
            Mr. Subhash V. Gutte, for Respondent Nos.4 & 5.
            Mr. P. P. Kakade, Addl. Govt. Pleader with P.N.Diwan, AGP for the State.
                                               _________
                                                      CORAM:           G. S. KULKARNI &
                                                                       Dr.NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.

                                                      DATE:            19 AUGUST 2026.

            P.C.

            1.         This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed

            praying for the following substantive reliefs:

                          “(a) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ thereby
                          holding that, the petitioner is recruited prior to 1.11.2005 and therefore, he is
                          entitled to get the benefits of old pension scheme i.e. The Maharashtra Civil
                          Service (Pension) Rules 1982 and Maharashtra Civil Services (Commutation
                          of Pension) Rules, 1984 and General Provident Fund Scheme (GPF) and for
                          that purpose issue necessary orders.
                          (b) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus and/or a
                          Writ in the nature of Mandamus thereby directing the Respondent
                          Authorities to extend the benefits to the Petitioner under the Maharashtra
                          Civil Service (Pension) Rules 1982 and Maharashtra Civil Services
                          (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1984 and General Provident Fund Scheme
                          (GPF);”

            2.         Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that a representation dated 23

            May 2024 is pending consideration before the Commissioner, Mahanagarpalika

            Shikshan Mandal, Nashik. He submits that the petition can be conveniently

            disposed of by directing the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation,
                                                     Page 1 of 2
                                                   19 August 2026
            P.V.Rane
                                                                     12-WP-18615-2024.DOC



Nashik– Respondent Nos.4 and 5 to consider the representation dated 23 March

2024 (Exhibit ‘G’, page 45 to the petition) and decide the same in accordance

with law, as expeditiously as possible. The prayer as made by the learned Counsel

for the petitioner is fair.

3.         We accordingly dispose of this petition keeping open all contentions of the

parties, with a direction that a representation dated 23 March 2024 (Exhibit ‘G’)

be decided by respondent Nos.4 and 5, in any event, within a period of six weeks

from today. All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open.

4.         Disposed off in the aforesaid terms. No costs.




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




                                      Page 2 of 2
                                    19 August 2026
P.V.Rane


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.