Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

SADANAND VITTHAL DESHPANDEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THRO. ITS SECRETARY

Decided
Disposal
Disposed Off

Holding

The pendency of the earlier writ cannot be a ground to withhold the petitioner’s pension; the pension must be processed as of the original superannuation date.

Summary

The petitioner, a former lecturer‑professor‑principal at a grant‑in‑aid Ayurvedic college, reached the statutory retirement age of 60 in December 2021 but continued in service without salary until he turned 64, seeking the benefit of a government resolution that raised the superannuation age for government colleges. He filed a writ petition in 2021 to obtain the enhanced age, which remains pending, and now requests that his pension be processed. The respondents delayed processing the pension proposal, citing the pendency of the earlier writ. The Court held that the pending petition cannot be a ground to withhold the pension, emphasizing that pension is a property right not subject to deprivation except as per law. Accordingly, the Court directed the respondents to prepare the pension proposal treating the petitioner as having retired on 31 December 2021 and to forward it for finalisation and payment within stipulated time‑frames. The writ petition was allowed without costs.

Issues considered

  • Whether the pendency of a writ seeking a more beneficial superannuation age bars the processing of a pension claim.
  • Whether an employee’s right to pension can be withheld pending adjudication of a related claim.
  • Whether pension constitutes a property right enforceable irrespective of pending litigation.

Subjects

  • pension
  • superannuation
  • grant‑in‑aid college
  • writ petition
  • right to pension
  • pending litigation
  • government resolution
  • property right

Judgment

                                                               402-WP-5200-2026.DOC



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                      WRIT PETITION NO. 5200 OF 2026

Sadanand Vitthal Deshpande                             ...Petitioner
      Versus
The State of Maharashtra
through its Secretary and Ors.                         ...Respondents
                                       _______
Mr. Ajay A Joshi, for Petitioner.
Ms. Neha Bhide, GP a/w Mr. P.P. Kakde, Addl. GP and Ms. D.N. Diwan AGP for
     Respondent – State.
Mr. Akshay Pansare i/by Sachindra B. Shetye, for Respondent Nos.4 and 5.
                                       _______

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

                            DATE:           24th SEPTEMBER 2026

P.C.

1.       By this petition, the Petitioner seeks directions for Respondent No. 4 to

forward and process the Petitioner's pension proposal to the office of Respondent

No. 3. Additionally, it seeks for Respondent No. 3 to submit the aforementioned

pension proposal to Respondent No. 2, who is responsible for disbursing the

pensionary and other retirement benefits.

2.       The Petitioner joined Respondent No. 4 – Tilak Ayurved Mahavidyalaya,

Pune, a fully grant-in-aid college conducted by Respondent No. 5 – Rashtriya

Shikshan Mandal, as a Lecturer in 1995, became a Professor in 2005, and held

charge as Principal from 2013. The age of superannuation of teachers in aided

private Ayurveda colleges is 60 years, whereas for teachers in Government

Ayurveda colleges it stands enhanced to 64 years by Government Resolution dated


                                    Page 1 of 3
Prasad
                                                                402-WP-5200-2026.DOC



5th March 2015. The Petitioner, who was due to superannuate on 31 st December

2021, filed Writ Petition No. 9236 of 2021 seeking the benefit of the enhanced

age. By an order dated 22nd December 2021, this Court permitted him to continue

in service without salary, which interim relief was modified by an order dated 18 th

July 2023 to confine it to the post of Professor. Writ Petition No. 9236 of 2021 is

pending.

3.       Under the interim orders, the Petitioner continued to serve without salary

until he attained the age of 64 years in December 2025. By letters dated 4 th

November 2025 and 8th December 2025, he requested Respondent No. 4 to

process his pension proposal. Respondent No. 4, however, by a letter dated 31 st

December 2025, sought guidance from the Directorate of AYUSH in view of the

pendency of Writ Petition No. 9236 of 2021. The Petitioner’s letter dated 5 th

January 2026 to Respondent No. 3, pointing out that this Court (Nagpur Bench),

by an order dated 1st December 2025 in Writ Petition No. 4935 of 2025, directed

that the pension proposal of a similarly placed teacher be processed, has also not

been acted upon. Hence, this petition.

4.       We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

5.       As seen from the record, the only reason the Petitioner’s pension proposal

has not been processed is the pendency of Writ Petition No. 9236 of 2021. In our

opinion, this is no ground to withhold the Petitioner’s pension. In that petition, the

Petitioner seeks a more beneficial age of superannuation; the pendency of such a

claim cannot defeat his entitlement to pension on superannuation at age 60. The

Petitioner has now crossed even the age of 64 years, having rendered four years of

                                   Page 2 of 3
Prasad
                                                                                           402-WP-5200-2026.DOC



                       service without salary. The Supreme Court, in State of Jharkhand v. Jitendra

                       Kumar Srivastava1, held that pension is not a bounty but a valuable right in the

                       nature of property, of which an employee cannot be deprived save and except in

                       accordance with law. The Petitioner admits that his claim for the period from 1 st

                       January 2022 to 31st December 2025 depends on the outcome of Writ Petition

                       No. 9236 of 2021, and his pension would be revised if he succeeds therein.

                       6.         We accordingly direct as under:

                                  (i)      Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 shall prepare the Petitioner’s pension
                                           proposal, treating him as having superannuated on 31 st December
                                           2021 on attaining the age of 60 years, and forward the same to
                                           Respondent No. 3 within two weeks from today.
                                  (ii)     Respondent No. 3 shall scrutinise the proposal and forward it to
                                           Respondent No. 2 – Accountant General within three weeks of
                                           receipt. Respondent No. 2 is requested to finalise the Petitioner’s
                                           pension case expeditiously, preferably within four weeks of receipt of
                                           the proposal.
                                  (iii)    The pension and other retirement benefits admissible to the
                                           Petitioner shall be released to him within four weeks of the pension
                                           case being decided.


                       7.         The Writ Petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs.




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




                       1
                           (2013) 12 SCC 210.
PRASAD
RAJENDRASING
RAJPUT

 Digitally signed by
 PRASAD
                                                                 Page 3 of 3
 RAJENDRASING
 RAJPUT                Prasad
 Date: 2026.09.29
 10:43:40 +0530


Continue reading with your account

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

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

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