RAVINDRA KESHAV BIDKAR AND ANRversusGOVT OF MAHARASHTRA THROU. CHIEF SECRETARY AND ORS

                                                                     WP-8405-2024-BIDKAR.doc




                                                                                     Shephali


                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                     WRIT PETITION NO. 8405 OF 2024


                      1.   Ravindra Keshav Bidkar,
                           Age: 58 years, Floor Assistant, State
                           Institute of Educational Technology,
                           Agarkar Marg, Pune 411 004, and R/at
                           29/1/1/13,    Mauli     Nagar,  Katraj-
                           Kondhwa Road, Katraj, Pune 411 046.
                      2.   Ramdas Govind Shendge,
                           Age: 60 years, Floor Assistant, State
                           Institute of Educational Technology,
                           Agarkar Marg, Pune 411 004, and R/at
                           Post-Yawat Station, Tal: Daund,
                           Pune 412 214.                                     …Petitioners
SHEPHALI
SANJAY                      ~ versus ~
MORMARE
Digitally signed by
SHEPHALI
SANJAY
MORMARE
                      1.   Government of Maharashtra,
Date: 2026.07.08
14:23:07 +0530
                           through Chief Secretary, Mantralaya,
                           Mumbai 400 032.
                      2.   Government of Maharashtra,
                           through Principal Secretary,
                           Finance Department, Mantralaya,
                           Mumbai 400 032.
                      3.   Government of Maharashtra,
                           through Principal Secretary,
                           General Administration Department,
                           Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.
                      4.   Government of Maharashtra,
                           through Principal Secretary,
                           School Education & Sports Department,
                           Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.
                      5.   Commissioner Education,



                                                  Page 1 of 27
                                                  7th July 2026
                                                  WP-8405-2024-BIDKAR.doc




     Maharashtra State, Central Building,
     Pune 411 001.
6.   State Institute of Educational Technology,
     through its Director, Agarkar Marg,
     Pune 411 004
     Maharashtra State Council of Education
     Research & Training (Vidya Parishad/
     Pradhikaran), Sadashiv Peth,
     Pune 411 030.
7.   Maharashtra State Council of Educational
     Research & Training,
     (Vidya Parishad/Vidya Pradhikaran),
     Sadashiv Peth, Pune.                               …Respondents

A PPEARANCES
For the Petitioners       Mr Abhijeet A. Desai, with Mr Digvijay S.
                          Kachare, Ms. Mohini A. Repade, Mr Vijay
                          Singh, Ms Daksha Punghera, Mr. Karan
                          Gajra, Mr. Deepesh Ramrakhiani &
                          Ashlyn Almeida, i/b Desai Legal LLP.
For Respondents-State     Mr DB Khaire, Special Counsel, with
                          with Mr NC Walimbe, Addl. GP & Ms RM
                          Shinde, AGP.


                          CORAM : SUMAN SHYAM &
                                  SHYAM C. CHANDAK, JJ
                  RESERVED ON : 7th APRIL 2026.
               PRONOUNCED ON : 7th JULY 2026.

JUDGMENT (Per Suman Shyam, J):-

1.    Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.


2.    By consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final

hearing.



                             Page 2 of 27
                             7th July 2026
                                                WP-8405-2024-BIDKAR.doc




3.    This Writ Petition has been filed by two Petitioners, viz., (1)

Shri. Ravindra Keshav Bidkar and (2) Shri. Ramdas Govind

Shendge, assailing the Judgment and Order dated 11 th August

2023 passed by the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal

(“MAT”) in Original Application No. 570 of 2017 as well as the

Government Resolution (“GR”) dated 31 st May 2017. The facts and

circumstances of the case, giving rise to the filing of the Writ

Petition, in a nut-shell, are as hereunder.


4.    It appears from the projections made in this Writ Petition

that in the year 1982, the Central Government (Ministry of

Education and Culture, Government of India) took a decision to

establish State Institute of Educational Technology (“SIET”) for

providing research based children’s educational film, DVDs under

the INSAT scheme. These audio-visual contents were meant to be

telecast in the Doordarshan for imparting education to the

children. Accordingly, in the month of January 1982, meetings

were held between the State Government of Maharashtra and the

representatives of the Ministry of Education and Culture,

Government of India, for establishment of SIET under the “INSAT

for Education” Scheme, with hundred percent central funding,




                               Page 3 of 27
                               7th July 2026
                                               WP-8405-2024-BIDKAR.doc




which was to be provided initially for a period of five years.

Facilitating the establishment of the SIET, vide Government

Resolution dated 27th January 1984, 28 posts were created.

Thereafter, vide Government Resolution dated 8th January 1985,

another 92 posts were created, thus taking the total number of

posts created for SIET to 120. Thereafter, advertisement notice, for

filling up the posts was issued. Government Resolution dated 30 th

January 1985 paved the way for constituting a selection committee

for recruitment in the Class-I and II, posts whereas, vide GR dated

28th May 1986, selection committee for appointment to the Class-

III and IV was constituted. Thereafter, the Government had granted

approval for establishing SIET (“Balchitravani”). On 31 st October

1991, the SIET was accorded the status of an Autonomous

Institution. On 5th February 1992, the “SIET” was registered as a

society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. By the G.R.

dated 27th May 1986 the Head Office of the SIET was notified at

Pune while the ET cell at Worli, Mumbai was made the sub-office.

The employees were also given an option to get absorbed under

the SIET.




                             Page 4 of 27
                             7th July 2026
                                               WP-8405-2024-BIDKAR.doc




5.    It would be pertinent to note herein that the SIET had never

received any grant in aid from the State Government but was

entirely dependent on the funds coming from the Central

Government. As such, the entire expenditure for running the SIET

including funds for payment of salary and other dues of the staff

and also for producing the audio-visual programs to be telecast in

the “Doordarshan”, came to be entirely borne by the Central

Government. However, on 30th December 2002, the Central

Government sought the response of the State Government, thus

making an enquiry as to whether, it was willing to take over the

responsibility of the institution. By the communication dated 14 th

January 2003, the State Government of Maharashtra had replied,

expressing its inability to bear the expenses of the society (SIET).

In the meantime (since the year 2003) the Central Government

had stopped funding the SIET, as a result of which, the primary

source of funding the institution got completely dried up. The SIET

was therefore, left with no option but to generate its own funds

and utilise the same for payment of salary and other expenses for

running the institution.




                             Page 5 of 27
                             7th July 2026
                                              WP-8405-2024-BIDKAR.doc




6.     For some time, the SIET succeeded in generating revenue

through its various programs telecast through the Doordarshan.

However, after sometime, the Doordarshan also stopped free

telecast of the programs of “Balchitravani”, as a result of which,

the only source of revenue for the SIET also become unavailable.

In the result, the institute could no longer pay the salary of its

employees. Situated thus, 16 employees of the SIET had

approached the Industrial Court at Pune, by filing Complaint (ULP)

No. 242/2015 against the SIET and its authorities, inter alia

contending that although they have been working under the SIET

for the last 20 years, the Respondent No. 1 (SIET), which is an

Autonomous Body, engaged in producing educational compact

disk, has failed to pay the salary and wages to the complainants,

since the month of April 2014. In the said complaints, it was

alleged that non-payment of wages to its employees by the SIET

amounts to unfair labour practice under Item 9 (of Schedule IV of

the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of

Unfair Labour Practices (MRTU & PULP) Act, 1971 which relates to

‘Failure to implement award, settlement or agreement’). Therefore,

the 16 complainants had sought a direction from the Industrial




                            Page 6 of 27
                            7th July 2026
                                                WP-8405-2024-BIDKAR.doc




Court, upon the Respondents to make payment of their wages

along with the areas dues.


7.    After taking note of the grievance expressed by the

complainants, the learned Industrial Court had passed order dated

3rd November 2015 directing the Respondents (SIET) to pay the

earned wages of the complainants within one month. The SIET and

its authorities had assailed the order dated 3 rd November 2015 by

filing Writ Petition No. 1590 of 2016 before this Court. After

hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge of this Court, by

order dated 14th March 2016, had dismissed the Writ Petition by

affirming the order of the Industrial Court. In paragraph 9 of the

order dated 14th March 2016, the learned Single Judge has

observed that the complainants/Respondents in the Writ Petition

were working for the last 20 years as “workmen” and the Central

Government had taken the liability to pay their salaries and wages

for five years. It was therefore, observed that the SIET authorities

cannot refuse to pay the salaries and wages of the Respondents (in

that Writ Petition) on the ground that the Central Government has

stopped paying grant to the State Government.




                             Page 7 of 27
                             7th July 2026
                                                WP-8405-2024-BIDKAR.doc




8.     It appears from the material on record that in terms of order

of the Industrial Court, as noted above, the employees of the SIET

including the present petitioners were paid their arrears salaries

and wages. Notwithstanding the same, due to want of resources, it

had become impossible for the SIET to continue with its

operations. As such, on 3rd April 2017, a decision was taken for

closure of SIET due to want of resources. Consequently, the

impugned GR dated 31st May 2017 was issued under section 25FFA

of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, closing the SIET, which

resulted in termination of the service of all its employees including

the Writ Petitioners.


9.    Aggrieved by the GR dated 31st May 2017, as many as 21

employees of the SIET, including the present petitioners, whose

services stood terminated and/or dispensed with pursuant to the

closure of the SIET, had approached the MAT by filing Original

Application No. 570 of 2017, which was dismissed by the learned

Tribunal by the impugned Judgment and Order dated 11 th August

2023. The aforesaid Judgment and order dated 11 th August 2023

passed by the learned MAT along with the G.R. dated 31 st May




                             Page 8 of 27
                             7th July 2026
                                                 WP-8405-2024-BIDKAR.doc




2017 is being assailed by two of the Original Applicants named

above, by filing the present Writ Petition.


10.   The primary contention of the Original Applicants before the

MAT was to the effect that the Central Government, having funded

the SIET and their appointments having been made against the

posts created by the State Government of Maharashtra carrying the

same pay scale as other similarly situated Government employees,

the Applicants were Government Servants for all practical

purposes. Therefore, their services could not have been dispensed

with by denying the benefits of pension, etc. which are payable to

the similarly situated Government Servants. In other words, the

Original Applicants claimed the status of Government servant,

employed under the State Government of Maharashtra and

accordingly, claimed retiral benefits at par with the State

Government Servants. However, by the impugned Judgment and

order dated 11th, August 2023, the learned MAT has rejected such

contention of the Original Applicants.


11.   Mr Desai, learned counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioners

has argued that the 120 posts for SIET were created with the

sanction   of   the   Finance      Department   of   Government       of



                                Page 9 of 27
                                7th July 2026
                                                   WP-8405-2024-BIDKAR.doc




Maharashtra. Various Pay Commissions’ recommendations were

also made applicable to the employees of the SIET, including the

Petitioners   through   the    various        Government    Resolutions,

prescribing the same pay scales of the different posts including the

post of Floor Assistant (Manch Sahayak), issued from time to time.

The Respondents have also maintained Service Books of the

Petitioners, recording every details of their service, including

appointment, pay, increment, and leave. According to the learned

counsel for the Petitioner, such Service Book is maintained only in

respect of the Government Servants under the Maharashtra Civil

Services Rules, 1981. Contending that the recruitment of the

Petitioners were on the basis of the Advertisement dated 10 th

December 1986, issued by the Government wherein, it was

mentioned that the State Government Rules would be applicable to

such employees and the fact that the appointment of the

Petitioners were pursuant to a regular selection process, Mr. Desai

has argued that the procedure followed for recruitment of the

Petitioners was the same as in the case of Government Employees,

thus putting them at par with the State Government servant,

therefore, the Writ Petitioners must be treated as Government

servants for the purpose of the pension and other retiral dues.



                              Page 10 of 27
                              7th July 2026
                                                WP-8405-2024-BIDKAR.doc




12.   The learned counsel for the petitioners has further argued

that the services of the writ Petitioners were regularized by

following the due process of law. Therefore, it cannot be denied

that the Petitioners were under the employment of the State

Government of Maharashtra for all intent and purpose. As such,

having completed more than 30 years of continuous service, as per

Rule 30 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982,

the Petitioners would be entitled to receive pension.


13.   The learned counsel for the Petitioners has further argued

that denial of parity of pay and other service benefits to the

Petitioners, as extended to similarly situated State Government

employees, would amount to violation of their fundamental rights

guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Therefore, the present is a fit case where this Court may direct the

Respondents to extend the benefit of pension to the Petitioners by

treating them as employees in the service of the State Government.


14.   To conclude his arguments, Mr. Desai had submitted that

since the learned Additional Government Pleader has appeared on

behalf of the SIET and its authorities in the present proceeding,

hence, it is established beyond doubt that the SIET is nothing but



                             Page 11 of 27
                             7th July 2026
                                               WP-8405-2024-BIDKAR.doc




an integral part of the State Government of Maharashtra.           He

submits that, an Autonomous Body, independent of the control of

the State, would not be represented by the Law Officer of the

State, but by a private counsel.


15.   While opposing the arguments advanced by the learned

counsel for the Petitioners, Mr Khaire, learned Special GP,

appearing for the Respondents has Submitted that the Petitioners

were not appointed on the basis of the advertisement notice issued

by the State Government, but their names were sponsored by the

employment exchanges. In fact, it has been argued by Mr Khaire

that neither the Petitioner No. 1 nor the Petitioner No. 2 had ever

submitted applications in response to the advertisement notice

issued by the Government for establishing the SIET. It is also his

submission that the Petitioner No. 1, Shri RK Bidkar was appointed

on temporary basis for a period of one year vide orders dated 18 th

May 1987, the Petitioners were appointed on temporary basis for a

period of one year. On 13th October 1995, the Petitioner No. 1 was

permanently absorbed in the SIET, which was an autonomous

institution and, therefore, he was not made permanent by the




                              Page 12 of 27
                              7th July 2026
                                                   WP-8405-2024-BIDKAR.doc




Government. Likewise, the Petitioner No. 2 was also absorbed in

the SIET.


16.    Mr. Khaire has further argued that the Petitioners were

never appointed as employees in the service of the State

Government at any point of time, but were all along under the

employment of the SIET, which was an Autonomous Body.

According to Mr. Khaire the service of the Petitioners, along with

the other similarly situated employees, had to be dispensed with

due to the closure of SIET which could not function anymore due

to scarcity of funds. Under these circumstances, submits Mr Khaire,

the learned MAT was wholly justified in dismissing the Original

Applications   while   upholding    the     validity   of   Government

Resolution dated 31st May 2017.


17.   We have considered the argument made by the learned

counsel for the parties and have also gone through the material

available on record.


18.   From the facts and circumstances of the case narrated herein

above, it is evident that the basic case of the Original Applicants

before the learned MAT was for recognizing them as Government




                            Page 13 of 27
                            7th July 2026
                                               WP-8405-2024-BIDKAR.doc




Servants, in the employment of the State Government of

Maharashtra on permanent basis. However, the learned MAT was

of the opinion that the Original Applicants, including the present

Petitioners, were in the employment of an autonomous institution

(SIET), which was established with 100% Central Government

funding, with no financial participation from the State Government

of Maharashtra. Therefore, they cannot be treated as Government

Servants.


19.   From a careful examination of the documents on record, we

find that the SIET was established as a Society registered under the

Societies Registration Act. This institution had all along enjoyed

the status of an autonomous institution. The 120 number of posts,

created by the Government Resolutions dated 27 th January 1984

and 8th January 1985 were not under any administrative

department of the State Government of Maharashtra but those

were meant only for the SIET. It may be correct to say that the

posts in SIET were created with the approval of the Finance

Department of the Government of Maharashtra and the pay scale

extended to its employee also matched that of similarly situated

Government employees. It may also be the case that the assets and




                             Page 14 of 27
                             7th July 2026
                                              WP-8405-2024-BIDKAR.doc




the infrastructure, necessary for operationalizing the SIET were

also provided by the State Government besides, sending some of its

employees on deputation. However, that alone, in our considered

opinion, would not be sufficient for this court to hold that the

appointments of the Petitioners were against civil post created

under the Government of Maharashtra so as to treat them as

Government servants.


20.   Whether the petitioners were appointed against vacant posts

under the Government of Maharashtra or not would primarily

depend on what is reflected in their order of appointment. It

appears that vide order dated 18th May, 1987, issued by the

Director of Vidya Parishad, Pune, the Petitioner No. 1 was

appointed as Painter (Class-III) and the Petitioner No. 2 was

appointed as Khalasi (Class-IV). There is nothing available on

record to show that Vidya Parishad, Pune is a Government

Department. Rather, it appears that Vidya Parishad was originally

created under a Government Resolution issued by the School

Education Department which commenced its operation in the year

1964 as State Institute of Education (SIE) with the object of

streamlining primary education. It further appears that Vidya




                            Page 15 of 27
                            7th July 2026
                                               WP-8405-2024-BIDKAR.doc




Parishad, also known as “Maharashtra Vidya Pradhikaran , Pune” is

a body corporate having a distinct and different entity from a State

Government Department. Therefore, the Director of Vidya Parishad

did not have the authority to issue appointment order in respect of

any post in a Government Department.


21.   On 25th May 1987, the Petitioners had accepted their

appointment under the SIET. The temporary service of the

Petitioners were later regularized in the SIET in the year 1987. The

documents on record un-equivocally go to show that the

Petitioners were appointed exclusively to serve under the SIET,

which is a registered society. The SIET was later granted the status

of an autonomous institution. It was only thereafter that the post

of Director, SIET was created in the year 1989. The Petitioners

were permanently absorbed as employees of the SIET after options

were called from all the employees. The Writ Petitioners had never

raised any protest regarding their permanent absorption under the

SIET. It may be true that the SIET was an instrumentality of the

State. But that alone would not confer the status of Government

Servants on all its employees.




                             Page 16 of 27
                             7th July 2026
                                                    WP-8405-2024-BIDKAR.doc




22.   It must also be borne in mind that the service of the

Petitioners were not terminated on any other ground but the same

had to be discontinued/dispensed with as a consequence of closure

of the SIET by invoking Section 25FFA of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947. The SIET was closed by issuing the impugned

Government Resolution dated 31st May 2017 wherein, it has been

inter-alia noted that due to technological advancements and

availability of alternative platform, there was no longer any need

for a separate State Level Educational Technology Institute

(Balchitravani), since the objective with which, ‘Balchitravani’ was

established was now being fulfilled through technological

advancements among the teachers and the digital schools, wherein

the students are receiving effective and qualitative education. The

operative part of the Government Resolution dated 31 st May 2017

would be relevant in this case and, therefore, are being reproduced

hereinbelow for ready reference:-


      “As per the opinion of the Department of Law and Justice and
      the Department of Finance, as well as the decisions taken in
      the meeting of the Governing Body held on April 3, 2017, it
      has been decided to close the State Institute of Educational
      Technology, Pune (Maalchitravani) and establish a new
      institution, e-Maalbharti.
      1)     Under Section 25 FFA of the Industrial Disputes Act,
      1947, an establishment with less than 50 workers can be
      closed if it is in financial distress. Since the Children's




                               Page 17 of 27
                               7th July 2026
                                                        WP-8405-2024-BIDKAR.doc




      Television Institution is in financial distress and there is no
      money left to meet the salaries and daily expenses of the
      employees, since this establishment has less than 50 workers,
      and since this establishment is in the process of
      industrialization, it is being closed with effect from the date
      of this judgment.

      2)     The employees working in the organization
      Balchitravani should be given one month's advance notice as
      per the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and all the employees
      should be made exempt from the daily wage from 31st May,
      2017. Government Decision No. 2016/103/11/-.
      3)      The salaries of the employees of the Balchitvani
      Institute, as well as all the allowances and daily allowances,
      are being provided by the Balbharti Institute on a voluntary
      basis by making stories.
      4)      The administrative officer should take steps to transfer
      the organization of Balchitrvani, along with all the records of
      the Sarva Jang Galgat organization, to Balbharati, and the
      expenses incurred for reasons such as accommodation,
      security, etc. should be met from the funds available at
      Balbharati.
      5)     Once e-Balbharatis operational, employees of
      Balchitravani who are not working on the date of this
      government decision should be given priority without any
      condition if they fulfill the educational qualifications of the
      required posts specified for e-Baal Bharti at this time and if
      they participate in the selection process and are appointed on
      the basis of merit.”

23.   It would be relevant to mention herein that although it

would not be possible to lay down exhaustive criteria so as to

indicate as to what would constitute Government Service, yet, in

order to qualify as a State Government Servant, a Master-Servant

relationship between the employee and the State Government as

the employer must be established. In case of Government Servants,

the right to take disciplinary action or terminate the services of the




                                 Page 18 of 27
                                 7th July 2026
                                                       WP-8405-2024-BIDKAR.doc




employee must be entirely in the control of the Government and

the salary and wages of such employees must also be charged to

the public exchequer, viz, the consolidated fund of the State. Apart

from that, the employees must also be holding a civil post under

the Government and their appointments must be made by

following norms which fall within the domain of Article 309 of the

Constitution of India.


24.   Rule 2(b) of the Maharashtra Civil Service (Conduct) Rules,

1979 defines Government Servant in the State of Maharashtra as

follows:-


      “(b) “Government servant” means any person appointed to
      any civil service or post in connection with the affairs of the
      State of Maharashtra, and includes a Government servant
      whose services are placed at the disposal of a company,
      corporation, organization, local authority or any other
      Government, notwithstanding that his salary is drawn from
      sources other than from the Consolidated Fund of the State”



25.   From the above definition, of Government Servant, it is

apparent that Government Servant would include even the service

of those persons at the disposal of a company, corporations or

other authorities named therein. However, in order to come within

the definition of Government Servant, their original appointment

must of be in the Civil Service or to a post connected with the



                                 Page 19 of 27
                                 7th July 2026
                                               WP-8405-2024-BIDKAR.doc




affairs of the State. Persons who were never appointed in a Civil

post in connection with the affairs of the State Government cannot

claim to be “Government Servant” by relying upon Rule 2(b) of the

Rules of 1979.


26.   In the present case, as has been noted hereinabove, the

Petitioners were all along under the employment of SIET, which is

a registered society established with funds made available by the

Central Government for a specified period. Therefore, their initial

appointment were not in civil posts connected with the affairs of

the State. The SIET had all along functioned as an autonomous

institution under the control of an Executive/Administrative

Committee. The SIET was no doubt a Government Undertaking

and the State Government also had deep and pervasive control

over the affairs of the SIET. However, there is nothing to indicate

that the State Government of Maharashtra had provided any

financial assistance to the SIET. The 120 posts in the SIET were

evidently created by the Government Resolutions dated 27 th

January, 1984 and 8th January 1985, with the approval of the

Finance Department. However, there was no indication in the

relevant Government Resolutions that those posts will be treated as




                            Page 20 of 27
                            7th July 2026
                                                WP-8405-2024-BIDKAR.doc




posts under any administrative department of the Government of

Maharashtra. Therefore, even if the Maharashtra Civil Services

Rules, 1981 were made applicable to the employees of SIET, that

by itself would not confer the appointees in those posts, with the

status of Government servants, as has been claimed by the

Petitioners.


27.   There is yet another aspect of the matter which deserves

mention herein. Pension is payable to a retired Government

servant as per the provisions of Maharashtra Civil Services

(Pension) Rules, 1982. However, in the present case, the

Petitioners had not retired from service on attaining the age of

superannuation. Rather, their services were dispensed with on the

closure of the SIET by invoking the powers under Section 25FFA of

the Industrial Disputes At, 1947. A Government servant, under the

Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, would be entitled to

receive pension only upon fulfilling the conditions laid down in the

Pension Rules and not otherwise. Since the Petitioners have not

retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation, we are

of the opinion that they do not fulfill the conditions of the Pension

Rules. Therefore, the question of paying pension to the Petitioners,




                             Page 21 of 27
                             7th July 2026
                                                     WP-8405-2024-BIDKAR.doc




under the Maharashtra Civil Services Rules, would not arise in the

facts and circumstances of the case.


28.   It is also to be noted herein that in the order dated 3 rd

November 2015 passed by the Industrial Court at Pune in

Complaint (ULP) No. 242 of 2015 as affirmed by the Bombay High

Court by order dated 14th March 2016, the Industrial Court has

treated the Applicants therein as “Workmen”. Although the present

Petitioners/Original Applicants were not the Applicants in

Complaint (ULP) No. 242 of 2015, yet, they were similarly situated

employees of the SIET as the 16 Complainants in Complaint (ULP)

No. 242 of 2015. The present Petitioners/Original Applicants had

also received their arrear, salaries and other dues in terms of the

Order dated 3rd November 2015 passed by the Industrial Court at

Pune. The Writ Petitioners had accepted such benefits as workman.

A workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 is as follows:-


      “(s)   “workman” means any person (including an apprentice)
      employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled,
      technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or
      reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied,
      and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation
      to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been
      dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a
      consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or




                                Page 22 of 27
                                7th July 2026
                                                         WP-8405-2024-BIDKAR.doc




         retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any
         such person—

                (i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950),
         or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of
         1957); or

                (ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer
         or other employee of a prison; or

               (iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or
         administrative capacity; or

                (iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws
         wages exceeding ten thousand rupees per mensem or exercises,
         either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by
         reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a
         managerial nature.”

29.   The Petitioners had never disputed their status as workmen.

Therefore, they cannot now turn around and claim the status of

the permanent Government Employees as such a stand would be in

marked contradiction to the stand taken by the Applicants in

Complaint (ULP) No. 242 of 2015, where in the direction to pay

the arrear salary and wages was issued by the Learned Industrial

Court.


30.   We have also noted that the order of regularization of service

of the present Petitioners itself is based on the order of Industrial

Court, Pune dated 28th September 2000 passed in Complaint (ULP)

No. 127 of 1991 wherein, five Applicants including the present

Petitioner No. 1 had approached the Industrial Court. Although Mr




                                   Page 23 of 27
                                   7th July 2026
                                                   WP-8405-2024-BIDKAR.doc




Desai has argued that at the relevant point of time, the MAT was

not in existence, as a result of which, the Applicant had no option

but to approach the Industrial Court at Pune, yet, what cannot be

lost sight of is the fact that the Applicants approaching the learned

Industrial   Court   never   claimed      the   status   of   permanent

Government Employees at any point of time. Therefore, the

Petitioners cannot now be permitted to take a totally contradictory

stand in the matter at this distant point of time.


31.   In so far as the plea raised by the Petitioners regarding the 6

(six) Government Employees in the service of SIET who were

allegedly given the benefit of pension etc., is concerned, it is the

specific case of the Respondents that those six employees were

originally appointed in civil posts under the Government of

Maharashtra prior to establishment of SIET and later on, they were

sent on deputation to the SIET. Therefore, those six employees

were not the employees of the SIET but State Government

Employees. The Petitioners could not produce any cogent material

to dislodge such stand of the Respondents. If that be so, the

question of treating the Petitioners at par with those six State




                              Page 24 of 27
                              7th July 2026
                                               WP-8405-2024-BIDKAR.doc




Government Employees, in our considered view, would also not

arise in the facts of the present case.


32.   Finally, we would deal with the argument of the learned

counsel for the Petitioner to the effect that the State Government,

having promised to treat the Petitioners as State Government

employees, cannot now resile from such promise and take a stand

that the Petitioners were never employed as Government servants

as such a stand would be hit by the doctrine of promissory

estoppel. In support of his above argument, Mr. Desai has placed

reliance on Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs State of Uttar

Pradesh & Ors.1 Here also, we are unable to agree with the

submissions of the learned counsel for the Petitioners. Merely

because it was indicated that the Maharashtra Civil Services Rules,

1981 would be applicable to the employees of the SIET and only

on account of the fact that the posts created under the SIET carried

the similar pay scale as the other similarly situated Government

employees and the pay revisions from time to time were also

similar in nature, cannot be sufficient ground to constitute a

promise by the State to the Petitioners to treat them as


1     (1979) 2 SCC 409.




                               Page 25 of 27
                               7th July 2026
                                                        WP-8405-2024-BIDKAR.doc




Government Servants, by an extension of the principles of

Promissory Estoppel.


33.   As noted above, in order to establish their status as

Government Servants, who are entitled to receive pension, the Writ

Petitioners must first establish that their appointments were made

against   permanent     posts     created       under     the    Government

Department and their salary was also paid from the consolidated

fund of the State Government of Maharashtra, thus putting in

place, a master-servant relationship between the Petitioners and

the Government, which they have failed to do in this case.

Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Doctrine of Promissory

Estoppel invoked by the Writ Petitioners would not be of any

assistance to them in the facts of this case.


34.   Section 25FFA permits closing down of an undertaking by

the employer by giving sixty days notice of such intention,

provided the number of workmen employed therein are not less

than fifty. The number of employees in the SIET, at the time of its

closure, was evidently and admittedly more than fifty. Documents

available on record go to show that closure compensation for a

sum of Rs. 24,75,981/- and Rs. 15,91,044/- were sanctioned by



                                Page 26 of 27
                                7th July 2026
                                               WP-8405-2024-BIDKAR.doc




the Director of Vidya Parishad for the Petitioners No. 1 & 2

respectively and the amounts were also transferred to their

respective bank accounts in the year 2017. Although Mr. Desai has

argued that the Petitioners had never accepted such amounts and

are ready and willing to return the same if pension is made

available to them, such a recourse, in our opinion, would neither

be practicable nor permissible at this point of time. From a careful

analysis of the Government Resolution dated 31 st May 2017, we do

not find any anomaly in the decision of the Government of

Maharashtra in issuing the impugned Government Resolution,

warranting interference by this Court.


35.   For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are of the considered

opinion that the Judgment and Order dated 11 th August 2023

passed by the learned MAT does not suffer from any error

warranting interference by this Court. The Writ Petition is,

therefore, held to be devoid of any merit and the same is

accordingly dismissed.


36.   Parties to bear their own costs.



(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)                        (SUMAN SHYAM, J.)




                             Page 27 of 27
                             7th July 2026