Bombay High Court
DR. HANUMANT VISHNUTIRTH ADAVIversusTHE STATE OF MAHASHTRA , SECRETARY, HIGHER AND TECHNICAL EDU. AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The petition is dismissed as the Central Government pension rules and AICTE pay scale provisions do not apply to a State Government pensioner without a corresponding State Government resolution.
Summary
The petitioner, a former State Government professor and principal, filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking fixation of his pension in accordance with AICTE pay scales and the Central Government Office Memorandum dated 30 July 2015, alleging discrimination because his pension was lower than that of Central Government pensioners. He relied on various Government Resolutions and AICTE notifications that revised pay scales for technical education staff and claimed that the Central Government pension rules should apply to him as a pre‑2006 retiree. The respondents contended that the petitioner is governed by the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, and that the Central Government Office Memorandum and AICTE scheme are not applicable to State Government employees without a specific State Government resolution. The Court examined the representations, the relevant memoranda, and the statutory framework, concluding that the petitioner’s pension has always been governed by State rules and that no State Government order adopts the Central Government provisions. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for lack of merit, and the interim application was also rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether the Central Government Office Memorandum dated 30 July 2015 and AICTE pay scale regulations are applicable to a pensioner of the Maharashtra State Government.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to a revised pension on the basis of Central Government pension rules and the Fifth and Sixth Pay Commissions.
- Whether the denial of the revised pension amounts to discrimination against the petitioner.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- pension revision
- discrimination
- central government vs state government
- AICTE
- pay commission
- Article 226
- writ petition
Judgment
Digitally signed
by PRAJAKTA
PRAJAKTA SAGAR
VARTAK
SAGAR Date:
6-WP 599-23.DOC
VARTAK 2026.08.18
20:54:51
+0530
Prajakta Vartak
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 599 OF 2023
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 11723 OF 2025
Dr. Hanumant Vishnutirth Adavi ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
_________
Ms. Gayatri Singh i/b. Mr. Makarand Bakore for Petitioner.
Mr. B. V. Samant, Addl. G.P. with Ms. P. N. Diwan, AGP for State.
__________
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
DATE: 17 AUGUST 2026
P.C.
1. The petitioner, by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, who is a State Government pensioner, has prayed for fixation of his pension
in accordance with the Rules framed by the All India Council for Technical
Education (“AICTE”), in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 30 July 2015
issued by the Government of India. It is in such context, the petitioner has
contended that the pension granted to him by the State Government is
inadequate and is required to be revised in view of the benefits arising from the
implementation of the Fifth and Sixth Pay Commissions, which have been
extended to pensioners.
2. Ms. Gayatri Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, has placed
reliance on the Government Resolution dated 05 May 2009 as also the Office
Page 1 of 9
17 August 2026
6-WP 599-23.DOC
Memorandum dated 01 September 2008. She has also drawn our attention to
Government Resolution dated 20 August 2010, which pertains to the revision of
pay scales of teachers and equivalent cadre at the Degree/ Diploma level in
Technical Education under the AICTE Scheme (6 th Pay Commission). The said
G.R. categorically provides that, after considering all aspects of the scheme
announced by the All India Council for Technical Education vide its notifications
referred to at Serial Nos.3 & 4, the Government had decided to revise the pay
scales and Dearness Allowance of all teachers and equivalent cadres working in
Government and non-Government aided institutions with effect from 01 January
2006, in accordance with the provisions of the said scheme, with the additional
provisions prescribed in paragraph 8 of this Resolution for enhancing and
improving the quality of education.
3. It was further provided that the other allowances applicable to the teachers
and librarians in these institutions, as well as the age of superannuation and leave
package, shall be governed by the provisions applicable to State Government
Employees. Thus, the G.R. provided for implementation of the revised pay scales
for teachers and librarians in Degree & Diploma level Government and non-
Government aided institutions conducting professional courses which are as
follows :
“A. Revision of pay scales for teachers working in degree level
institutions -
1. General
(i) There shall be only three designations in respect of teachers in
university departments and Engineering colleges, namely, Assistant
Professor, Associate Professor and Professor. However, there shall be no
Page 2 of 9
17 August 2026
6-WP 599-23.DOC
change in the present designation in respect of Library Personnel at
various levels.
(ii) No one shall be eligible to be appointed, promoted or designated
as Professor, unless he/she possesses a Ph.D. and satisfies other academic
conditions, as laid down by the AICTE from time to time. This shall,
however, not affect those who are already designated as ‘Professor’.
(iii) The pay of teachers and librarians in these institutions shall be
fixed according to their designations in two pay bands of Rs.15600-
39100 and Rs.37400-67000 with appropriate "Academic Grade Pay"
(AGP). Each Pay Band shall have different stages of Academic Grade
Pay which shall ensure that teachers and librarians covered under this
Scheme, subject to other conditions of eligibility being satisfied, have
multiple opportunities for upward movement during their career.
(iv) Posts of Professors shall be created in under-graduate (UG)
institutions as well as in post-graduate (PG) institutions. The ratio of
Professors to (01) (02) Maintenance Grants to Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar
Technical University, Lonere, District Raigad (2203 052 3)
104 - Assistance to Non-Government Technical Colleges and Institutes-
(01) (03) Engineering Colleges (2203 016 7)
(01) (02) Polytechnic (2203 015 8)
105 — Polytechnics-
(00) (01) Government Polytechnics (2203 020 2)
(00) (02) Expansion and Development of Government Polytechnics
(2203 021 1)
(00)(08) Establishment of New Government Polytechnics (2203 265 1)
(00) (02) Removal of Regional Imbalance (2203 04 99)
(00) (11) Introduction of Double Shift in government Polytechnics
(2203 276 9}
108 Examinations -—
(01) (01) Board of Technical Examination (2203 028 3)
112 - Engineering / Technical Colleges and Institutes —
(00) (01) Government Engineering and Architectural Colleges
(including hostels) (2203 032 7)
(00) (10) Establishment of New Engineering Colleges (2203 267 1)”
4. On behalf of the petitioner, our attention is also drawn to the Notification
dated 22 January 2010 issued by the AICTE, whereby the AICTE notified the
Page 3 of 9
17 August 2026
6-WP 599-23.DOC
All India Council for Technical Education (Pay Scales, Service Conditions and
Qualifications for the ‘Teachers and other Academic Staff in Technical
Institutions (Degree) Regulations, 2010, in which the following category of
pensioner has been provided:-
“Pension:
(i) For teachers and other cadres in AICTE approved institutions in
receipt of pension, the Central Government rules for pension and
gratuity as applicable to Central Government employees shall be
applicable.
(ii) In view of the new pension scheme effective from 1.1.2004, no
new cases of conversion to pension scheme shall be allowed.”
5. Our attention is also drawn to the Office Memorandum dated 30 July
2015 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pensions,
Department of Pension & Pensioners’ Welfare, in regard to revision of pension of
pre-2006 pensioners, which is applicable to Central Government employees.
6. Thus, the contention of the petitioner is that there is discrimination in the
grant of pension, which, according to the petitioner, is not in accordance with the
norms applicable to Central Government employees or the AICRE norms.
7. The petition is opposed on behalf of the State Government and to that
effect, a reply affidavit of Mahendra Keshaw Dawane, Deputy Director, in the
office of Directorate of Technical Education, is placed on record.
8. We find from the record that the petitioner was appointed as Professor in
College of Engineering Pune till 27 December 1988 and thereafter he was
appointed as Principal in Government College of Engineering Karad for 4 days
Page 4 of 9
17 August 2026
6-WP 599-23.DOC
under the Joint Director Regional Office Pune. He retired on Superannuation as
Principal on 01 January 1989 from Government College of Engineering Karad.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner was the DDO (Drawing & Disbursement
Officer) of the Institute and he forwarded his pension proposal to respondent
no.4 office as per the various Government Resolutions issued from time to time.
Respondent no. 4 sanctioned the pension of the petitioner PPO No M/87695
dated 13 November 1990. The petitioner retired during the applicability of the
fourth pay commission. Respondent No.4 revised the pension payable to the
petitioner in accordance with fifth pay commission as applicable and informed
Respondent No. 8 vide a letter dated 06 October 2020. It is the respondent
No.4’s categoric case that thereafter Respondent No. 8 vide letter dated 26
August 2021 revised the pension of the Petitioner in the sixth and seven pay
commission respectively as applicable and informed to the petitioner.
9. In regard to the petitioner’s contention regarding the applicability of the
Office Memorandum dated 30 July 2015 issued by the Central Government, the
petitioner had made a representation dated 21 February 2021 to respondent no.4
seeking revision of his pension in accordance with the said office memorandum.
However, respondent no.4, by letter dated 28 April 2021, informed the petitioner
that the norms/rules of the Central Government contained in the Office
Memorandum dated 30 July 2015 had not been adopted by Respondent No. 1
and that there was no G.R. to that effect. Accordingly, the petitioner’s
representation was rejected. It is also contended that the petitioner’s reliance on
the letter dated 21 December 2019 (Exhibit I to the petition) was misplaced, as
Page 5 of 9
17 August 2026
6-WP 599-23.DOC
the said letter was subsequently cancelled by the Deputy Director by letter dated
03 January 2022, and the cancellation was communicated to respondent no.4 and
the petitioner respectively.
10. It is also the case of the respondents as set out in paragraph 9 of the reply
affidavit that as per the Office Memorandum dated 01 September 2008 issued by
the Central Government, was applicable to all the pensioners/ family pensioners
who were drawing pension/family pension on 01 January 2006 under the Central
Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1972 and hence, the said rules were applicable to
the employees of the Central Government only and not to the employees of State
Government. It is pointed out that the State Government employees are
governed by the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1982 and that
nowhere in the norms or the rules of the Central Government under Office
Memorandum dated 30 July 2015 or other Office Memorandum is adopted by
the State Government/respondent no.1 or to that effect, no G.R. was issued by
State Government.
11. Mr. Samant, learned Additional G. P., has also drawn our attention to the
communication dated 28 April 2021 issued by the Office of the Accountant
General to the petitioner, in which the petitioner’s contention in regard to the
applicability of the Central Government Office Memorandum dated 30 July 2015
cannot be accepted. The reasons are elaborate. The contents of the
communication are required to be noted which read thus:-
“1. As communicated by the Assistant Registrar (Public Grievances
Page 6 of 9
17 August 2026
6-WP 599-23.DOC
Cell), Bombay High Court vide their letter dated 04.10.2019, your
grievances were forwarded to Director of Technical Education,
Maharashtra State, Mumbai vide this office letter dated 31.10.2019 to
examine the claim for grant of revised pension @ 23,700/- w.e.f.
01.01.2006 and submit the proposal along with supporting GR from
Govt. of Maharashtra, if the revision of pension is admissible to Shri
H.V,Adavi. Action taken by this office was also intimated to you vide this
office letter dated 04.11.2019.
2. The proposal received from the Jt. Director, Technical
Education, Mumbai vide letter dated 21.12.2019, to grant revised pension
@ Rs.23,700/- ( 50% of minimum pay of Rs.37400 + GP Rs.10,000/-
w.e.f. 01.01.2006) on the basis of revised pay scales granted w.e.f.
01.01.2006 vide Govt. of Maharashtra GR dated 20.08.2010 and Central
Govt. OM date 30.07.2015 was not considered by this office as it was not
supported by relevant GRs of Govt. of Maharashtra. Accordingly, this
office vide letter dated 06.02.2020 has intimated the pension sanctioning
authority i.e. Jt. Director, Technical Education, Mumbai that as Shri
Adavi has retired prior to 01.01.2006, as per GR dated 30.10.2009
(revision of pension of pre-2006pensioners) revision/consolidation of
pension in his case will be directly done by the Pension disbursing
authority concerned(Treasury Officer).
3. Your contention that “the said GR dated 30.10.2009 relates to
the pension of post 01.01.2006 pensioners of the State Govt. governed by
the MCS rules and this GR has absolutely no concern with your case, as
your case relates with the 6th pay revision of pension of pre-2006
pensioners governed by the Central Govt. rules, which comes under the
purview of C.C.S.(Pension) rules sanctioned by the Department of
pension and Pensioners’ Welfare of Govt. of India”, is untenable for
following reasons.
. Though, the pay structure recommended by the AICTE .is
adopted and part of expenditure on salary of Educational Institutions is
met by the State Government through Central grant: expenditure on
account of pension of such retired employees is entirely borne by the
Government of Maharashtra for which no grant is provided by the
Central Government.
. It is clearly stated in the said GR 20.08.2010 that the scheme
announced by the AICTE vide its notification dated 22.01.2010 will be
applicable to related Educational Institutions coming under the purview
of State Legislature, provided State Government wishes to adopt and
implement the scheme. Accordingly, after considering all the aspects of
the scheme announced by the AICTE, the Government has decided to
revise pay scales and Dearness Allowance of all teachers and equivalent
cadres working in Government and non-Government aided institutions
w.e.f 01-01-2006 as per the provision of the scheme with additional
provisions prescribed in para-8 of the said resolution for enhancing and
improving the quality of education. The other allowances applicable, the
age of Superannuation and leave package in these institutions shall be as
per the State Government.
Page 7 of 9
17 August 2026
6-WP 599-23.DOC
4. Further, your contention that once the pension sanctioning
authority i.e. Director of Technical Education, Maharashtra State,
Mumbai has sanctioned and recommended to revise the pension @
Rs.23,700/- as per Central Governments OM dated 30.07.2015, the
Accountant General office has no mandate to reject the revised pension
recommended by the pension sanctioning authority, it is stated as under.
. Firstly, the Jt. Director, Technical Education, Mumbai does not
have the Jt. Director, Technical Education, Mumbai does not have any
mandate to sanction pensionary benefits outside the purview of
MCS(P)Rules.1982 and Grs, Notifications issued by benefits outside the
purview of MCS(P)Rules.1982 and GRs Notifications issued by
Government of Maharashtra governing the grant of pensionary benefits
from time to time. It seems of Maharashtra governing the grant of
pensionary benefits from time to time. It seems that the Jt. Director,
Technical Education, Mumbai has forwarded the pension proposal solely
on the basis of representation made by Shri Adavi and without any
supporting GR of Govt. of Maharashtra of representation made by Shri
Adavi and without any support in GR of Govt. of Maharashtra grant
revised pensionary benefits as per Central Governments OM dated
30.07.2015.
. Secondly, the role of the Accountant General Office in matters
related to authorization of pensionary benefits in respect of retired
employees of the State of Maharashtra, in his capacity as an Audit Officer
of the State, is limited to scrutiny of proposal received from Pension
sanctioning authority, in the light of the provisions contained in M.C.S.
(Pension) Rules, 1982 and with reference to Government Resolutions
issued from time to time. As the pension proposal forwarded by the Jt.
Director, Higher Technical Education, Mumbai was not in accordance
with relevant rules, same was returned to the Department to submit the
same alongwith relevant GRs of Govt. of Maharashtra (i.e. Govt. of
Maharashtra’s order implementing the decision given by the Court or
implementing the Central Govt. OM date 30.07.2015)
In the view of the above, your claim for revised pension w.e.f.
01.01.2006 @Rs.23,700/- (instead of Rs.18,532/-), in accordance with
the rules applicable to All Centrally Funded Technical Institutes issued
by the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource
Development, Department of India, DOPTs OM dated 30.07.2015, or as
per the ruling in WP No.4292 of 2013, will be admissible subject to
acceptance and implementation of the said orders by the Government of
Maharashtra.
With due respect to your age, I humbly state that this office
cannot authorise revised pension as claimed by you without appropriate
orders of the Government of Maharashtra. The case is treated as closed at
the end of this office.”
12. In the aforesaid backdrop, the contention of Ms. Singh that the AICTE pay
Page 8 of 9
17 August 2026
6-WP 599-23.DOC
scales would be applicable to the petitioner, that the petitioner would be governed
by the Office Memorandum dated 30 July 2015, and that the Central
Government accordingly be directed to extend the said benefits, cannot be
accepted. The petitioner is a pensioner of the State Government. He accepted
the pension payment order issued to him on 13 November 1990 and has
accordingly been drawing pension from the year 1990 until the filing of the
present petition on 11 October 2022. Thus, the petitioner is now contending
that he should be granted the benefits available to Central Government
pensioners under the applicable rules. Such contention, in our opinion, cannot be
accepted, as the said rules are not applicable to the petitioner. The petitioner from
the very beginning of his pensionable service was governed by the pension regime
applicable to State Government employees.
13. In the above circumstances, there is no merit in the petition. It is
accordingly rejected. No costs.
14. The interim application would not survive. It is accordingly rejected.
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
Page 9 of 9
17 August 2026
Checking your session…