Bombay High Court
JAGANNATH DADABHAU BARSHILEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE SECRETARY
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court held that the university’s permanent approval bars any subsequent State objection, and the pay‑scale reduction and recovery were arbitrary, violating natural justice, thus the petitioners are entitled to CAS benefits from their initial appointment.
Summary
Four senior academic staff members appointed as Assistant Professors before 13‑Oct‑1992 challenged a 2022 communication that reduced their pay scales and sought recovery of amounts paid, alleging they were exempt from the NET/SET requirement under a 2013 Government Resolution and that the university had granted permanent approval of their services. The respondents argued the appointments were initially part‑time and not exempt, justifying the pay‑scale reduction. The Court held that once the university granted permanent approval after verifying the appointments, the State could not later object, and the reduction violated principles of natural justice as no notice or hearing was given. Relying on precedent (Baburao Ramji Wadje) and Supreme Court authority on natural justice, the Court found the action arbitrary and unreasonable. Consequently, the writ petitions were allowed, the impugned communication was quashed, CAS benefits were directed from the date of first appointment, and any recovered amounts were to be refunded.
Issues considered
- Whether the exemption from NET/SET examination for appointments before 13‑Oct‑1992 applies to the petitioners.
- Whether the university's permanent approval of the petitioners' services precludes the State from later objecting to the appointments.
- Whether the reduction of pay scale and recovery of salary without notice and hearing violates principles of natural justice.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) benefits from the date of their initial appointment.
Legislation cited
- Government Resolution dated 27.06.2013
- State Higher Education Act (implied) — s. 12A(4)(b), 12A(4C)
- UGC Regulations dated 19.09.1991
Subjects
- Career Advancement Scheme
- CAS benefits
- Pay scale reduction
- NET exemption
- Natural justice
- Higher education
- Writ petition
- Article 226
- Permanent approval
- Salary recovery
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:46433-DB
1 WP6786/2022+3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
WRIT PETITION NO.6786 OF 2022
Dinkar Anandrao Jaybhay,
Age- 59 years, Occu- Service,
R/o. Vijay Nagar, Pathardi,
Tq. Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar. ..Petitioner
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra
Through the Secretary of Higher Education
Department, Mantralaya Mumbai
2] The Director of Higher Education
Maharashtra State, Pune
3] The Joint Director Higher Education
Pune Regional office, Pune.
4] The Accounts Officer,
(Higher Education Grants),
Pune Region, 17, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar
Road, Pune, Dist. Pune
5] Savitribai Phule Pune University,
Ganesh Khind Pune, Through its Registrar
6] Shri Anand College of Science,
Through its Principal,
Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar ...Respondents
…...
2 WP6786/2022+3
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.6774 OF 2022
Anita Balakrishna Pawase
Age- 52 years, Occu- Service,
R/o. Anand Nagar, Pathardi,
Tq. Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar. ..Petitioner
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra
Through the Secretary of Higher Education
Department, Mantralaya Mumbai
2] The Director of Higher Education
Maharashtra State, Pune
3] The Joint Director Higher Education
Pune Regional office, Pune.
4] The Accounts Officer,
(Higher Education Grants),
Pune Region, 17, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar
Road, Pune, Dist.Pune
5] Savitribai Phule Pune University
Ganesh Khind Pune, Through its Registrar
6] Shri Anand College of Science,
Through its Principal,
Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar ...Respondents
…..
3 WP6786/2022+3
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.6772 OF 2022
Jagannath Dadabhau Barshile,
Age- 55 years, Occu- Service,
R/o. Pathardi – Shevgaon Road,
Anand Nagar, Pathardi,
Tq. Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar. ..Petitioner
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra
Through the Secretary of Higher Education
Department, Mantralaya Mumbai
2] The Director of Higher Education
Maharashtra State, Pune
3] The Joint Director Higher Education
Pune Regional office, Pune.
4] The Accounts Officer,
(Higher Education Grants),
Pune Region, 17, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar
Road, Pune, Dist. Pune
5] Savitribai Phule Pune University
Ganesh Khind Pune, Through its Registrar
6] Shri Anand College of Science,
Through its Principal,
Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar ...Respondents
…..
4 WP6786/2022+3
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.6763 OF 2022
Shaikh Muktar Fakir
Age- 55 years, Occu- Service,
R/o. Tisgaon, Tq. Pathardi,
Dist. Ahmednagar. ..Petitioner
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra
Through the Secretary of Higher Education
Department, Mantralaya Mumbai
2] The Director of Higher Education,
Maharashtra State, Pune
3] The Joint Director Higher Education
Pune Regional office, Pune.
4] The Accounts Officer,
(Higher Education Grants),
Pune Region, 17, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar
Road, Pune, Dist. Pune
5] Savitribai Phule Pune University
Ganesh Khind Pune, Through its Registrar
6] Shri Anand College of Science,
Through its Principal,
Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar ...Respondents
…...
5 WP6786/2022+3
In all the Petitions :
Shri. Dr. R. R. Deshpande h/f. Ms. Priyanka R. Deshpande,
Advocate for the Petitioners
Shri. B. B. Bhise, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 – State.
Shri. V. P. Golewar h/f. Shri. A. R. Joshi, Advocate for Respondent No.5
Shri. Prashant R. Nangare, Advocate for Respondent No.6
…..
CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI
AND
ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
Reserved on : SEPTEMBER 01, 2026
Pronounced on : OCTOBER 05, 2026
JUDGMENT (PER: ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.) :
. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With consent of the
parties, these Writ Petitions are heard finally at the stage of admission.
2. Since the common question of fact and law are involved in these
Petitions, the same are being decided by this common Judgment.
3. By these Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, the Petitioners have challenged the communication dated
08.04.2022 issued by Respondent No.4, the Accounts Officer (Higher
Education Grants), Pune Region, Pune, thereby proposing recovery by
virtue of refixation of their pay scale. The Petitioners are also seeking
direction to declare that they are entitled for Career Advancement
Scheme (for short, ‘CAS’) benefits from their initial appointments.
6 WP6786/2022+3
Alternatively, they have also prayed that the services rendered by them
from date of their joining be considered for the purpose of conferring
the CAS benefits. Besides above reliefs, the Petitioners have sought
direction for restraining Respondent Nos.1 to 6 from making any
recovery of amount already paid to them under the head of erroneous
payment of the CAS benefits.
4. It is the case of the Petitioners that, they were appointed as
‘Assistant Professors’ prior to 13.10.1992. Respondent No.5 – University
granted permanent approval to their services. Since they were
appointed prior to 13.10.1992, they were exempted from passing NET /
SET examination. On 13.02.2001 they were granted Senior Pay Scale.
On 13.02.2004 they were granted second promotion in selection grade.
On 13.02.2007 they were promoted to the post of ‘Associate Professor’,
which, according to them, was a promotion to a higher pay scale.
Respondent No.4, however, by impugned order, reduced their pay sale
from June 2022 and initiated recovery of excess amount paid to them
under the pretext that their initial appointments were made by Local
Selection Committee and that they failed to pass NET / SET
examination. The Petitioners, therefore, have approached this Court.
5. For the sake of convenience, the details of the Petitioners are
summarized in the following tabular form.
7 WP6786/2022+3
III Date of IV Date of V. Date of VI. Date VII. Date on VIII. Date on
first Permanent exemption on which which IInd which IIIrd IX. Salary X. Salary XI. Current Status
Sr. I. WP No. II. Name appointment Approval granted Ist promotion promotion revised as 7th reduced vide retired or in service
N of as Assistant granted by from promotio granted in granted as pay I.O. &
o. Petitioner Professor University NET/SET by n granted Selection Associate commission impugned
University in Senior Grade Professor endorsement
Scale
1) 6786/2022 Dinkar 01.07.1991 03/12/2007 22/02/2010 13/2/2001 13/02/2004 13/02/2007 Rs.1,66,400/- Rs.1,01,100/ Retired as on
Anandrao w.e.f. AGP AGP AGP - Salary 31.10.2022
Jaybhay 01/07/1991 Rs.7000/- Rs. 8000/- Rs.9000/- reduced from
the month of
June 2022
payable in
July 2022
2) 6763/2022 Shaikh 08.07.1991 15/07/2008 22/02/2010 13/02/2001 13/02/2004 13/02/2007 Rs.1,81,800/- Rs.1,71,400/ In service due to
Muktar w.e.f. AGP AGP AGP - Salary retire on
Fakir 08/07/1991 Rs.7000/- Rs.8000/- Rs.9000/- reduced from 31/05/2027
the month of
June 2022
payable in
July 2022
3) 6772/2022 Barshile 08.08.1991 05/03/2007 18/02/2010 13/02/2001 13/02/2004 13/02/2007 Rs.1,81,800/- Rs.1,13,700/ In service due to
Jagannath w.e.f. AGP AGP AGP - Salary retire on
Dadabhau 08/08/1991 Rs.7000/- Rs.8000/- Rs.9000/- reduced from 31/05/2027
the month of
June 2022
payable in
July 2022
4) 6774/2022 Pawase 01.07.1992 05/03/2007 23/02/2010 13/02/2001 13/02/2004 13/02/2007 Rs.1,66,400/- Rs.1,01,100/- In service due to
Anita w.e.f. AGP AGP AGP Salary retire on 30.11.2029
Balakrishna 01/07/1992 Rs.7000/- Rs.8000/- Rs.9000/- reduced from
the month of
June 2022
payable in
July 2022
6. We have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners, learned AGP
for Respondent Nos.1 to 4, learned Counsel for Respondent No.5 –
University and learned Counsel for Respondent No.6 – College and with
their able assistance, perused the record.
7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners would submit that, the
Petitioners were duly qualified for being appointed to the post of
‘Assistant Professors’. Respondent No.6 appointed the Petitioners to the
said posts after following due procedure of law. Respondent No.5 –
University also granted permanent approval to their services. Since they
were appointed prior to 13.10.1992, they were exempted from passing
NET / SET examination as per Government Resolution dated 27.06.2013
(for short, ‘the said Government Resolution’). He would further submit
8 WP6786/2022+3
that, the Respondents failed to consider Statute 415 of Respondent No.5
– University in its proper perspective. In fact, Clause - 3 of Statute 415
empowers Respondent No.6 – College to fill up a temporary vacancy. He
would further submit that, before taking the impugned action of
reducing pay-scale of the Petitioners and initiating recovery, opportunity
of hearing was not given to the Petitioners. He, therefore, urged that,
the Writ Petitions deserve to be allowed.
8. Per contra, learned AGP would submit that, in the light of the fact
that the initial appointments of the Petitioners were as part-time
Lecturers and as it is only after 2013 that the Petitioners’ appointments
were regularized, it cannot be presumed that they were exempted from
passing NET/SET examination. He would therefore submit that, the
Petitioners were erroneously granted higher pay-scale and therefore,
Respondent No.4 was justified in reducing pay-scale of the Petitioners by
initiating recovery of excess amount paid to them as they were not
entitled thereto. He, therefore, urged that the Writ Petitions be
dismissed.
9. The controversy involved in these Petitions falls in a narrow
compass as to whether, once Respondent No.5 – University grants
permanent approval to the services of the Petitioners with effect from
their initial date of appointment, can Respondent Nos.1 to 4 raise
objection in respect of the said approvals.
9 WP6786/2022+3
10. Indisputably, the Petitioners were appointed prior to 13.10.1992
on the respective dates as indicated in the aforesaid tabular form. They
were exempted from passing NET / SET examination as per the said
Government Resolution. After completing the probation period, the
services of the Petitioners are deemed to have been confirmed.
Respondent No.5 - University granted permanent approval to their
services from the date of their initial appointments in the year between
2007 – 2008. We are, therefore, of the view that, once Respondent No.5
– University has granted permanent approval to the services of the
Petitioners after verifying as to whether their appointments are proper
or not, Respondent Nos.1 to 4 could not have raised objection at the
later stage.
11. We find that, the issue involved in these Writ Petitions is squarely
covered by the Judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the
case of Baburao Ramji Wadje vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others ,
decided on 09.06.2026 in Writ Petition No.7412 of 2022, to which one
of us (Nitin B. Suryawanshi, J.) is a Party. The relevant observations of
this Court read thus :
“5. In support of the petition, petitioner has relied upon
the various orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court [Coram: Ravindra V. Ghuge and S. G. Dige, JJ.] in
similar facts, such as order dated 13.04.2022 passed in Writ
Petition No.11545 of 2021, order dated 08.09.2021
[Coram: S. V. Gangapurwala and R. N. Laddha, JJ.] passed
10 WP6786/2022+3
in Writ Petition No.5164 of 2021, order dated 05.02.2024
[Coram: Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi and S. G. Chapalgaonkar,
JJ.] passed in Writ Petition No.10170 of 2021, order dated
31.01.2020 [Coram: S. C. Dharmadhikari and R. I. Chagla,
JJ.] passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at
Principal Seat in Writ Petition No.4959 of 2017 and the
order dated 16.07.2020 [Coram: S. S. Shinde and V. G.
Bisht, JJ.] passed in Writ Petition No.11746 of 2018.
6. In all these orders, this Court has taken a view that
since the University has granted approval, who was
required to consider whether appointment was proper or
not, the Government cannot raise objection to that effect at
a later stage. It is also held that, 'The Government
Resolution dated 27.06.2013 clarifies that the UGC
Regulations dated 19.09.1991 requiring a candidate to
possess NET/SET qualification is made effective in the State
under G. R. dated 23.10.1992'.
7. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed on
27.08.1992, therefore, he is exempted from passing
NET/SET examination. In view of the permanent approval
granted by respondent No.4 University to the appointment
of petitioner and as the CAS Assessment Committee has
recommended to grant CAS benefits and selection grade to
the petitioner after considering entire service record of the
petitioner and after verifying his eligibility, respondent No.3
is not entitled to raise objection that the petitioner's service
in the year 1992-93 and 1993-94 was temporary and he has
not passed NET/SET examination, to deny CAS benefits to
him.
8. Petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the orders of
the Co-ordinate Benches. Denial of CAS benefits to the
petitioner by respondent No.3 is arbitrary and unreasonable
and cannot be sustained in the facts of the present case.
Petitioner is, therefore, entitled for CAS benefits from the
date of his appointment.”
12. We also find substance in the contention of learned Counsel for
the Petitioners that, before taking the impugned action Respondent
11 WP6786/2022+3
Nos.1 to 4 neither put the Petitioners to the notice nor have granted
opportunity of hearing to them. We, therefore, find that, the impugned
action is violative of principles of natural justice. In this regard, a
support can be drawn from the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court
in the case of Union of India and Anr vs. P. N. Natarajan and Ors. Etc,
decided on 10.02.2010 in Civil Appeal No(s).238-244 of 2004, wherein
the Hon’ble Apex Court held thus:
“11. We have considered the respective submissions and
carefully scrutinized the records. Although, neither the
learned Single Judge nor the Division Bench considered the
issue of violation of the rules of natural justice, having given
serious thought to the entire matter, we are convinced that
the retiral benefits payable to the respondents could not be
revised to their disadvantage without giving them action
oriented notice and opportunity of hearing. By virtue of the
option exercised by them under Section 12A (4) (b) and
consequential action taken by the competent authority to fix
their pension etc., the private respondents acquired a
valuable right to accordingly receive the financial benefits
and the same could not have been reduced without
complying with one of the basic rules of natural justice that
no one shall be condemned unearned. The rule of audi
alteram partem has been treated as fundamental to the
system established by rule of law and any action taken or
order passed without complying with that rule is liable to be
declared void - State of Orissa vs. Dr (Miss) Binapani Dei and
others AIR 1967 SC 1269 and Sayeedur Rehman vs. State of
Bihar and others (1973) 3 SCC 333.
12. It is not in dispute that before directing revision of the
pension etc., payable to the private respondents, the Central
Government did not give them action oriented notice and
opportunity of showing cause against the proposed action.
Therefore, it must be held that the direction given by the
Central Government to revise the retiral benefits including
the pension payable to the respondents was nullity.
12 WP6786/2022+3
13. Dehors the above conclusion, we are convinced that
the action taken by the appellants to revise and reduce the
retiral benefits payable to the respondents was ex facie
arbitrary, unreasonable and unjustified and the learned Single
Judge did not commit any error by declaring that the Central
Government did not have the jurisdiction to unilaterally
alter/change the option exercised by the writ petitioners
under Section 12A (4) (b) read with Section 12A (4C).”
13. In the light of the aforesaid discussion and having regard to the
ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of P. N. Natarajan
(supra) and the Judgment of this Court in the case of Baburao Ramji
Wadje (supra), we find that the action of Respondent Nos.1 to 4 thereby
reducing the pay scale of the Petitioners, depriving them from the CAS
benefits and initiating the recovery of amount of salary already paid to
them, is arbitrary and unreasonable. The Writ Petitions, therefore,
deserve to be allowed. In the result, we pass the following order.
ORDER
(A) The Writ Petitions are allowed.
(B) The impugned communication dated 08.04.2022 issued by the
Respondent No.4 – The Accounts Officer (Higher Education
Grants), Pune Region, thereby reducing the pay scale of the
Petitioners and initiating recovery of amount already paid to them
is hereby quashed and set aside.
(C) Respondent Nos.1 to 4 are directed to give CAS benefits to the
services of the Petitioners from the date of their first
appointments.
13 WP6786/2022+3
(D) Respondent Nos.1 to 4 are further directed to refund the amount
recovered from the Petitioners, if any, pursuant to the impugned
order.
(E) The Respondent Nos.1 to 4 are directed to comply with the
aforesaid directions within a period of eight (8) weeks from
the date of receipt of copy of this order.
(F) Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
(ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)
GGP
Checking your session…