Bombay High Court
PREMLATA SURESH GOREversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA (HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPT. ) AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The part‑time service rendered by the petitioner on a fully aided post must be counted (at 50%) towards qualifying service, rendering her eligible for pension under the Old Pension Scheme.
Summary
Mrs. Premlata Suresh Gore, a retired lecturer who served as a part‑time teacher from 1992‑2010 and as a full‑time lecturer from 2010‑2022 in an aided college, sought pension under the Old Pension Scheme. The Education Department denied her claim, holding that her full‑time appointment post‑dated the 1‑Nov‑2005 cut‑off and that she was therefore covered by the Defined Contributory Pension Scheme. The High Court examined the applicability of Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, particularly Rule 57, and relied on the Full Bench decision in Deshmukh Dilipkumar Bhagwan v. State of Maharashtra, which treats part‑time service in fully aided posts as qualifying service (half‑counted). The Court held that her part‑time service must be counted, making her eligible for the Old Pension Scheme, and ordered payment of arrears with 8% interest. It also directed the removal of the Deputy Director of Education, Mr. Ganpat More, for arbitrary conduct.
Issues considered
- The applicability of the Old Pension Scheme to a teacher who served part‑time on a fully aided post before 1‑Nov‑2005.
- Whether part‑time service in an aided institution can be counted as qualifying service under Rule 57 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982.
- The effect of the Defined Contributory Pension Scheme (DCPS/NPS) on the petitioner’s entitlement to the Old Pension Scheme.
Subjects
- pension
- Old Pension Scheme
- part‑time service
- aided institution
- Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982
- Rule 57
- Defined Contributory Pension Scheme
- administrative law
- judicial review
- senior citizen
Judgment
Digitally
signed by
PRAJAKTA
PRAJAKTA SAGAR
SAGAR VARTAK 5-WP 5290-26.DOC
VARTAK Date:
2026.09.08
22:34:57
+0530
Prajakta Vartak
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 5290 OF 2026
Mrs. Premlata Suresh Gore )
Age: 63 years, Occupation: Retired )
Residing at 3, Erandwane Gaothan, )
Flat No.403, Matal Chambers )
Near Mhatre Bridge, Pune - 411004 ) ..Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra )
(Higher Secondary Education )
Department) Mantralaya, Mumbai )
(Through it's Secretary) )
2. The Director of Education )
(Higher Secondary Education )
Department) Mantralaya, )
Mumbai(through it's Secretary) )
3. The Deputy Director of Education )
(Higher Secondary) Pune Region, )
17, Dr.Ambedkar Road, Pune 411 001 )
4. Maharashtra Education Society, )
1214 - 1215, Sadashiv Peth, )
Pune 411 030 (Through it's Secretary) )
5. Abasaheb Garware College )
Karve Road, Deccan Gymkhana )
Pune 411 004 (Through it's Principal) ) ...Respondents
_________
Ms. Kumud Bhatia for the Petitioner.
Mr. Aditya Deolekar, AGP for State.
__________
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
Dr. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
DATE: 08 SEPTEMBER 2026.
Page 1 of 14
08 September 2026
5-WP 5290-26.DOC
P.C.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, heard
finally.
2. The petitioner, who is a retired Lecturer in a Junior College, has filed the
present petition seeking the grant of pension under the Old Pension Scheme. Her
claim has been denied on the ground that her service as a part-time Teacher from
20 June 1992 to 30 June 2010 was not to be taken into consideration, although
she was serving against an aided post. The prayers as made in the petition are
required to be noted which read thus:-
“(a) This Petition be admitted and Rule be issued.
(b) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or an
appropriate Writ and/or Orders, or directions in the nature of such a Writ
and be pleased to set aside the Orders dated 30.10.2025 and 12.11.2025
passed by the Respondent No.3 and 5 respectively.
(c) The Respondents be directed to forthwith settle Post Retirement
Monetary Benefits including her Gratuity, Provident Fund and her
Monthly Pension as per the Old Pension Scheme, under Maharashtra
Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 and Maharashtra Civil Services
(Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1984 and provisions of General
Provident Fund existed prior to 1.11.2025, for period from 01/02/2022
onwards with interest @ 18% p.a. thereon, for the Delay in releasing
Post Retirement benefits to the Petitioner;
(d) Pending the hearing and final disposal of present Petition, the
Respondent No.3 be directed to forthwith release the amounts of
Gratuity, the Provident Fund as well as her monthly Pension from 1st
February, 2022 onwards;
(e) Petitioner be awarded the costs of this Petition.”
3. The facts lie in a narrow compass:- The petitioner, who was qualified as
M.A., M.Ed., was appointed as a Teacher in respondent no.5-college, which was
an aided institution. She was initially appointed as a part-time Teacher pursuant
to an appointment order dated 20 June 1992. She continued to work on a part-
Page 2 of 14
08 September 2026
5-WP 5290-26.DOC
time post upto 30 June 2010. Thereafter, with effect from 01 July 2010, the
petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer on a full-time aided post, which she
continued to hold until her superannuation on 31 January 2022.
4. It is the petitioner's case that, having superannuated on 31 January 2022
after rendering approximately 30 years of service, she was entitled to pension
under the Old Pension Scheme. However, by a communication dated 22 April
2022, respondent no.3-Deputy Director of Education (Higher Secondary), Pune
Region, Pune, rejected the petitioner's claim on the ground that her appointment
on the full-time post was with effect from 01 July 2010 and, the same being
subsequent to the cut-off date of 01 November 2005, she was not entitled to the
benefits of the Old Pension Scheme. In these circumstances, the petitioner
approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 51 of 2023, inter alia, seeking
quashing and setting aside of the order dated 22 April 2022 and the subsequent
communications dated 31 May 2022 and 06 September 2022, whereby she was
denied the benefit of the old pension scheme. She also sought a direction to the
respondents to forthwith settle her post retirement monetary benefits, including
Gratuity, Provident Fund and monthly pension, for the period from 01 February
2022 onwards with interest @ 18% p.a. for the delay caused in releasing post
retirement benefits. The said writ petition came to be disposed of by an order
dated 14 July 2025. The said order is required to be noted which reads thus:-
“1. The Petitioner has put forth prayer clauses 11 (b), 11 (c) and 11
(d), as under :
“b) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate
Writ and/or Orders, or directions in the nature of such a Writ and
be pleased to set aside the Orders dated 22/04/2022,
06/09/2022 & 31/05/2022 passed by the Respondent No.03 &
Page 3 of 14
08 September 2026
5-WP 5290-26.DOC
05 respectively.
c) The Respondents be directed to forthwith settle Post
Retirement Monetary Benefits including her Gratuity, Provident
Fund and her Monthly Pension for period from 01/02/2022
onwards with interest @ 18% p.a. therefore, for the Delay in
releasing Post Retirement benefits to the Petitioner.
d) Pending the present Petition, the Respondent be
directed to forthwith release the amounts of Gratuity, the
Provident Fund as well as her monthly Pension from 1st
February, 2022 onwards.”
2. The learned AGP has tendered an affidavit-in-reply dated 24 th
April, 2024 (from page Nos. 71 to 85). He points out that the Hon’ble
Supreme Court passed an order on 12th September, 2023 in SLP (Civil)
Diary No. 9059 of 2023, directing that Civil Appeal No. 6051 of 2019
be listed for hearing.
3. The learned AGP submits, on instructions, that since the Full
Bench of this Court has delivered its verdict in Deshmukh Dilipkumar
Bhagwan and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Others the Petitioner’s
case will be considered in the light of the directions issued by the Full
Bench in Deshmukh Dilipkumar Bhagwan and Others (supra).
4. For the sake of clarity, we are reproducing paragraph No.37 of
Deshmukh Dilipkumar Bhagwan and others (supra) hereunder :
“37. Under these circumstances, we answer the Reference as
under :-
Question No. 1:
In the context of the right of an employee of private school or
college of education to receive pensionary benefits and the
corresponding liability of the Government to pay the same, only
those schools and colleges of education which are receiving
100% grant-in-aid can be termed as aided institutions.
Question No. 2:
The employees who were appointed prior to 1-11-2005 in aided
recognized primary, secondary schools as well as colleges of
education which were receiving less than 100% grant-in-aid as
on 1-11-2005 would be governed by the DCP scheme.
Question No. 3:
Similar will be the situation of the employees who were
appointed prior to 1-11-2005 in aided primary, secondary and
higher secondary schools as well as the colleges of education
which were receiving less than 100% grant-in-aid as on 1-11-
2005 but which became 100% aided before 29-11-2010 would
also be governed by the DCP scheme.”
5. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a
direction that the Petitioner’s case shall be considered in the light of the
judgment delivered in Deshmukh Dilipkumar Bhagwan and others
(supra). If the Petitioner is found entitled to any service benefits, the
same shall be extended to her. In case of any delay in the payment of
retirement benefits, the delayed amounts shall carry interest at the rate of
Page 4 of 14
08 September 2026
5-WP 5290-26.DOC
6% per annum, save and except, in the case of gratuity, which shall carry
interest at the rate of 10% per annum in light of the statutory provision.
6. Let the decision on the Petitioner’s case be taken by the
competent authority within 75 days from today.
(emphasis supplied)
5. It is on the aforesaid backdrop that respondent no.3 considered the case of
the petitioner and denied the grant of pension by the impugned communication
dated 30 October 2025. The impugned communication is required to be noted,
which read thus:-
“(Official translation of a photocopy of a LETTER, typewritten in
Marathi)
Exhibit-Q
Office of the DIVISIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
Pune Division, Pune-1.
17, Dr. Ambedkar Marg, Opp. Laal Deul, Pune 411001.
web-site : www.dydpune.co.in
Email :- [email protected] Phone :- (020) 26122217
O.No. D.D.E./Accounts-503/Pension/P.D./2025/7244 Date: 28.10.2025
30.10.2025
To,
The Principal,
MES Ababsaheb Garware College,
Karve road, Pune-4.
Subject :- Regarding the Pension case of Smt. Premlata Suresh
Gore, Assistant Teacher.
References:-1. Government Resolution No.C.P.S.-1006/ (23/06)/
S.E.-2/dated 29.11.2010 issued by the Government
of Maharashtra.
2. Government Resolution No.C.P.S.-2023/M.No.28/
TNT-6, dated 14.06.2023 issued by the Government
of Maharashtra.
3.Your Office’s Proposal vide O.No. 1317/25-26, dated
24.09.2025.
4.Writ Petition No. 51/2023 filed before the Hon’ble
High Court, Mumbai.
In connection with the above-mentioned references on the
above-noted subject, you are hereby informed that Smt. Premalata Suresh
Gore, Assistant Teacher, was granted approval in the full-time pay scale
from the part-time pay scale during the period from the date 20.06.1992
Page 5 of 14
08 September 2026
5-WP 5290-26.DOC
to the date 30.06.2010, thereby making her full-time teacher with effect
from the date 01.07.2010. Since Smt. Premalata Suresh Gore, Assistant
Teacher was appointed after the date 01-11-2005, new Defined
Contributory Pension Scheme (DCPS / NPS) is applicable to her. If
regular contribution deductions have been made for Smt. Premalata
Suresh Gore, Assistant Teacher under the new Defined Contributory
Pension Scheme and if the pension amount under the new Defined
Contributory Pension Scheme (DCPS / NPS) has been transferred to her
PRAN account under the NPS scheme, then, a proposal for withdrawing
the final balance amount standing to her PRAN Account number should
be submitted to the Education Officer (Secondary), Pay and Provident
Fund Unit, Pune.
Moreover, if the DCPS amount has not been transferred to NPS,
a proposal to withdraw the remaining final balance amount should be
submitted to the Superintendent, Pay and Provident Fund Unit, Pune.
Since the Defined Contributory Pension Scheme is applicable to
Smt.Premalata Suresh Gore, the proposal of Smt. Premalata Suresh Gore
for gratuity in accordance with the Government Resolution referred to
hereinabove at Sr.No. 2, should be submitted to this Office immediately.
(Signature Illegible)
30.10.2025
(Dr. Ganpat More)
Deputy Director of Education,
Pune Division, Pune-1.
Copy for information :-
1. Hon’ble High Court, Mumbai.
2. Director of Education (Secondary & Higher Secondary), M.S.,
Pune-1.
3. Superintendent, Pay & Provident Fund Unit (Secondary), Pune
4. Smt. Premalata Suresh Gore, Assistant Teacher, MES Abasaheb
Garware College, Karve Road, Pune.”
(emphasis supplied)
6. It is in these circumstances that the present writ petition has been filed
praying for the reliefs as noted hereinabove. A reply affidavit has been filed on
behalf of the respondents opposing the petition. The stand taken in the reply is
no different from that which was taken in the earlier writ petition filed before this
Court and as set out in the impugned communication (supra). The respondents
have failed to duly consider that the part-time service rendered by the petitioner
on a fully aided post is required to be considered in accordance with the
provisions of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 [for short, “the
Page 6 of 14
08 September 2026
5-WP 5290-26.DOC
MCS (Pension) Rules”], as applicable to the petitioner under Rule 19 of the
Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981
(for short, “1981 Rules”). Accordingly, the service rendered by the petitioner as a
part-time Teacher from 20 June 1992 till 30 June 2010 is not taken into
consideration requiring 50% of such service to be counted for the purpose of
determining the qualifying service for the grant of pension. We note that the reply
affidavit has been filed by Mr. Ganpat Shankarrao More, Deputy Director of
Education, Pune Region, Pune, wherein it has stated raising such contention that
the part-time service rendered by the petitioner cannot be taken into
consideration. However, the affidavit is completely silent on the applicability of
the relevant rules and, most importantly, Rule 57 of the MCS (Pension) Rules,
which is applicable to the present case.
7. Ms. Bhatia, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the
impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Education is mechanical,
which fails to take into consideration the settled principles of law laid down by
the Full Bench of this Court in Deshmukh Dilipkumar Bhagwan & Ors. vs. State
of Maharashtra & Ors.1. It is further submitted that the Deputy Director of
Education has avoided to consider, in its true perspective, the order dated 14 July
2025 passed by this Court (supra). Ms. Bhatia further submits that the impugned
communication is wholly contrary to the provisions of the MCS (Pension) Rules.
She has placed reliance on the decision of the Full Bench in Deshmukh
Dilipkumar Bhagwan & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (supra), as also on
1 2019(3) Mh. L.J. 903
Page 7 of 14
08 September 2026
5-WP 5290-26.DOC
the recent decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Vanita Rajendra
Bhadule vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2, to contend that the part-time
service rendered on an aided post is required to be taken into consideration as
qualifying service and that 50% of such service is required to be counted for the
purpose of pension. It is submitted that, by taking such period into consideration,
the petitioner's appointment falls prior to the cut-off date, i.e. 01 November
2005, and consequently, the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of the Old
Pension Scheme.
8. On the other hand, Mr. Deolekar, learned AGP, has placed reliance on the
reply affidavit to contend that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefits of the
Old Pension Scheme, as the part-time service rendered by the petitioner cannot
be taken into consideration, for the reasons as set out in the reply affidavit. It is
also his submission that the petitioner has availed the benefit of the ‘Defined
Contribution Pension Scheme’ (DCPS) and, therefore, the old pension scheme
cannot be made applicable to the petitioner.
9. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival contentions as also
we have perused the record.
10. At the outset, we may observe that the Deputy Director of Education, Mr.
Ganpat More, appears to be habitual in passing mechanical orders and in not
adhering to the applicable rules as well as the decisions of this Court. We have
repeatedly come across cases where the said incumbent has acted in complete
2 Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 18703 of 2024, decided on 25 June 2026 by Kolhapur Circuit Bench
Page 8 of 14
08 September 2026
5-WP 5290-26.DOC
defiance of the law, thereby causing serious prejudice to teachers who are
consequently required to knock the doors of this Court. This is not the first case.
We have repeatedly come across cases where such arbitrary orders have been
passed by the said incumbent and, consequently withdrawn. We may refer to the
proceedings in Writ Petition No. 7641 of 2026, wherein we recently passed the
following order:-
“1. The facts of the case of this petition are gross, the Deputy
Director of Education Dr. Ganpat More has passed a totally high
handed, arbitrary and illegal order, we intend to pass appropriate orders,
including to consider whether the said incumbent is fit to discharge
duties as a public servant.
2. However, at the request of Mr. Deolekar, learned AGP, stand
over to 8th September 2026.”
11. Thereafter, the order impugned in the said proceedings came to be
withdrawn. The aforesaid observations and made more particularly in view of the
fact that the said incumbent having avoided to consider the effect of the order
dated 14 July 2025 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the petitioner's
earlier writ petition, wherein the Division Bench had categorically observed that,
the decision of the Full Bench, would be required to be taken into consideration,
for the purposes of determining qualifying service. We find that the impugned
communication/order dated 30 October 2025 even remotely does not address the
issue which the said incumbent was directed to consider pursuant to the order
dated 14 July 2025 passed by this Court. The order is, to say the least, wholly
mechanical, apart from being arbitrary and high-handed. It is contrary to several
decisions of this Court as well as to the requirements of the MCS (Pension) Rules,
thereby causing harassment to the petitioner.
Page 9 of 14
08 September 2026
5-WP 5290-26.DOC
12. We may observe that there is no dispute insofar as the petitioner's
appointment as a part-time Teacher in the aided junior college, is concerned. She
served as a part-time Teacher from 20 June 1992 to 30 June 2010 and thereafter,
from 01 July 2010 until her superannuation, continued to discharge her duties as
a full-time Teacher on a fully aided post.
13. The Full Bench of this Court in Deshmukh Dilipkumar Bhagwan & Ors.
vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (supra), has held that the service rendered by an
employee of an aided school at the time of their retirement, would also count
towards the qualifying service for pension. Thereafter, a consistent view has been
taken by this Court in several decisions (see: Shivappa s/o. Bhujangappa Bembale
vs. State of Maharashtra3, Mukund s/o Bapurao Dhadkar vs. State of Maharashtra
& Ors.4, Shalini Asaram Akkarbote vs. State of Maharashtra 5, Purushottam
Harishchandra Shirsekar & Anr. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. 6, Nilesh s/o.
Namdev Gurav & Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. 7, Sunanda
Sahatragun Ingale vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. 8, Punjahari Baburao
Dighe And Others Vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others 9, Renuka
Chandrabhan Umredkar vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 10, Dilip Rana Randive
vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 11, Smt. Vanita Rajendra Bhadule (Aka. Vanita
3 2005(3) Mh LJ 709
4 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 98
5 Writ Petition No. 8289 of 2013, decided on 29 April 2014
6 Civil Writ Petition No. 2538 of 2021, decided on 07.09.2021
7 Civil Writ Petition No. 4748 of 2019, decided on 01.10.2021
8 Writ Petition No. 10036 of 2010, decided on 07 April, 2026
9 Writ Petition No. 12902 of 2018, decided on 06 May 2022 (Aurangabad Bench)
10 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 9587
11 Writ Petition No. 14880 of 2022, decided on 06 December 2023
Page 10 of 14
08 September 2026
5-WP 5290-26.DOC
Somnath Dikole) vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (supra)).
14. We may observe that Rule 19 of the 1981 Rules provides for the grant of
pension. Rule 57 of the MCS (Pension) Rules 1982, provides for ‘non-
pensionable service’ providing that one-half of an employee’s previous continuous
service is allowed to be counted for pension, as provided under Note 1 to Rule 57
of the MCS (Pension) Rules, 1982. Rule 57 reads thus:-
“57. Non-pensionable service. As exceptions to Rule 30, the following are
not in pensionable service :-
(a) Government servants who are paid for work done for Government but
whose whole-time is not retained for the public service,
(b) Government servants who are not in receipt of pay but are remunerated
by honoraria,
(c) Government servants who are paid from contingencies,
(d) Government servants holding posts which have been declared by the
authority which created them to be non-pensionable,
(e) Holders of all tenure posts in the Medical Department, whether private
practice is allowed to them or not, when they do not have an active or
suspended lien on any other permanent posts under Government.
Note 1.-In case of employees paid from contingencies who are subsequently
brought on a regular pensionable establishment by conversion of their posts,
one-half of their previous continuous service shall be allowed to count for
pension.
Note 2.-In the case of persons who were holding the posts of attendants
prior to 1st April, 1966, one-half of their previous continuous service as
attendants, shall be allowed to count for pension.”
(emphasis supplied)
15. Thus, considering the principles of law discussed hereinabove, we are of
the clear opinion that the part-time service rendered by the petitioner on the post
of Assistant Teacher from 20 June 1992 to 30 June 2010 is required to be
reckoned as qualifying service for pension and added to the regular service
Page 11 of 14
08 September 2026
5-WP 5290-26.DOC
rendered by the petitioner as a full-time Lecturer in the Junior College from 01
July 2010 till 31 January 2022. The petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed by
holding that the petitioner has become eligible for the grant of pension under the
Old Pension Scheme. Although the affidavit mechanically states that the
petitioner has received benefits under the DCPS, the petitioner has, in fact, not
received any such benefits.
16. In this view of the matter, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses
(b) and (c). The arrears of pension shall, however, be paid to the petitioner along
with interest at the rate of 8% per annum. The arrears of pension be disbursed to
the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date on which a copy of this
order is made available. Ordered accordingly.
17. Before parting we need to make further observations in regard to the
actions of the incumbent Deputy Director of Education, Mr. Ganpat More,
which, in our opinion, are quite gross and reflect brazen illegality. It cannot be
that he is unaware of the principles of law and the applicable rules, particularly
when he is discharging public duties in the important post of Deputy Director. In
fact, he has abused the authority and powers vested in him causing the employees
of schools like the petitioner to approach the Courts and litigate. In the present
case, he has completely disregarded not only the law as laid down by the Full
Bench, but also the specific order passed on the petitioner's earlier writ petition,
which was required to be taken into consideration while passing the impugned
order. We find that he not only referred to the said order but also conveniently
neglected to take note of the observations made by this Court. This more
Page 12 of 14
08 September 2026
5-WP 5290-26.DOC
particularly, when the orders passed by this Court on the petitioner’s previous writ
petition were plain, unambiguous and clear. Had such observations made by the
Court been taken into consideration, the impugned order could never have been
passed. We are accordingly of the opinion that Mr. Ganpat More, Deputy
Director, in passing the impugned order, has acted not only in an excessively
arbitrary but also in a highhanded manner abusing the authority vested in him
thereby requiring senior citizen like the petitioner to repeatedly knock the doors
of the Court. This is sheer harassment of the petitioner who is a retired employee
and a senior citizen. We find that there is a total lack of sensitivity of the
incumbent officer Mr. Ganpat More in dealing with issues concerning pension,
and the cases of senior citizens not only in the present case but also as noted by us
in the other cases. The duty of the incumbent officer was certainly to act with
sensitivity, empathy and compassion. On the contrary, we find high-handedness,
arbitrariness, and a total lack of public commitment on the part of the incumbent
officer.
18. We would be thus failing in our duty if we do not make appropriate
observations and for an action to be taken insofar as Mr. Ganpat More, Deputy
Director of Education, is concerned, this particularly in view of the highhanded
manner in which he has acted as discussed hereinabove. We are of the clear
opinion that a public servant who has shown utter disregard to the rule of law, to
the orders passed by this Court, and who has no sensitivity and conscience in
dealing with the pension issues of senior citizens as also who has caused such
unwarranted harassment to the citizens, in our opinion, cannot be said to be a fit
Page 13 of 14
08 September 2026
5-WP 5290-26.DOC
person to discharge public duties on such important post. We accordingly direct
the Secretary, School Education and Sports Department, Government of
Maharashtra, Mantralaya, to withdraw the charge of Deputy Director of Pune
Region, Pune, from Mr. Ganpat More. He be posted to a suitable department of
the State Government, and the discharge of his official duties as a public servant
be kept under strict vigilance by the appropriate higher authorities.
19. We were reluctant to pass this order, however, the pain and agony of
pensioners and similarly placed persons repeatedly reaching this Court and the
Court requiring to adjudicate on such issues is far more concerning as also there
ought not to be any further suffering at the hands of the said incumbent.
20. We hope that the Court is not required to consider in some proceedings,
the audit of all the duties discharged by the said incumbent and the litigation
generated by his actions, in the event, the Court is confronted with orders of
similar nature passed by Mr. Ganpat More if the same are contrary to law,
arbitrary, high-handed and/or issued on extraneous considerations. All these
observations shall be taken into consideration by the Secretary while granting any
posting to the incumbent in future.
21. We direct the State Government to immediately appoint a competent
officer to discharge the duties of the post of Deputy Director of Education, Pune
Region, Pune, in place of Mr. Ganpat More.
22. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of. No costs.
(Dr. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
Page 14 of 14
08 September 2026
Checking your session…