CHATUR BHIMSEN BAGAWADEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPT. ) AND ORS

                                                                     8-2183-24-wp.doc


                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                               CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                WRIT PETITION NO. 2183 OF 2024
                                Chatur Bhimsen Bagawade
                                          VERSUS
             The State of Maharashtra (through Its Secretary, Finance Dept.) And
                                            Ors

             Mr. Satish Raut, a/w Mr. Gajraj A. Mali i/b Mr. Laxman Deshmukh,
             advocate for the Petitioner
             Mr. Siddheshwar B. Kalel AGP for the State

                                       CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, &
                                               NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
                                       DATE    : 6th AUGUST 2026

             P. C. :


             1.        Heard Mr. Raut, learned Advocate for the Petitioner and the

             learned AGP.


             2.        The Petitioner before us was duly appointed after following
IRESH
MASHAL


Digitally
signed by
             the due process of law in the year 1995, the date of appointment of
IRESH
MASHAL
Date:
2026.08.06
18:35:02
+0530
             the Petitioner was 1st September 1994. The Petitioner was appointed

             on a part-time basis. He was also getting an additional

             salary/benefit of 20% grant-in-aid along with his part-time salary up

             to the year 2005. He retired on superannuation in the year 2025.

             The Petitioner claims to be entitled to the Old Pension Scheme in



                                              1 of 4
                                                         8-2183-24-wp.doc


view of the aforesaid facts, though his approval as a full-time

teacher may have come subsequently.


3.    In our opinion, in view of the decision of this Court in the case

of Vanita Rajendra Bhadule v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Writ

Petition No. 18703 of 2024, decided on 25 th June 2026) and in view

of the directions contained in Paragraph No. 28 thereof, the

Petitioner would be entitled to the Old Pension Scheme.


4.    The reasons given in Paragraph No. 28 of the said decision are

well known to us. In view of the aforesaid factual admitted position,

we are of the considered opinion that the case of the Petitioner is

covered under Note 1 of the Rule 57 of The Maharashtra Civil

Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, and he is therefore entitled to the

Old Pension Scheme.


5.    In view of the above observations and findings, the following

order is passed:


                              ORDER


     (I)   The petition is allowed in terms of Prayer Clause (A)

     & (B) which read as under:



                                2 of 4
                                                        8-2183-24-wp.doc


   “A) Call for relevant record and papers from the office of
   Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and after going through the same

   i) Hold and declare that Petitioner is governed by
   provisions of Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules,
   1982 and Maharashtra Civil Services (Commutation of
   Pension) Rules, 1984 and General Provident Fund Scheme.

   ii) Hold and declare that Petitioner is entitled for benefits
   of old pension scheme and covered under the provisions of
   Government Resolution dated 19th July, 2011 issued by the
   Respondent No.2.

   B) Direct the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to extend the benefits
   of old Pension scheme to the Petitioner and also direct the
   Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 not to apply new pension scheme
   i.e. Defined Contribution Pension Scheme (DCPS) to the
   Petitioner.”


(ii)     We direct the aforesaid exercise to be completed

within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a

server copy of this order.


(iii)    The      concerned   competent    authority    shall      be

personally responsible if they do not comply with the

aforesaid directions within four weeks as directed by this

Court.




                              3 of 4
                                                           8-2183-24-wp.doc


        (iv)     Liberty is given to the Petitioner to mention the

        matter for contempt if the aforesaid order is not complied

        with.


        (v)      The petition is allowed and disposed of in the above

        terms.




    [NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.]                 [MILIND N. JADHAV, J.]
Iresh




                                    4 of 4