SUNITA KANTARAM PHULSUNDERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

RUPALI                                                                         31. WP-8448.2016.doc
RAJESH
WAKODIKAR                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally signed by                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
RUPALI RAJESH
WAKODIKAR
Date: 2026.10.10                      WRIT PETITION NO. 8448 OF 2016
17:09:31 +0530
                      Sunita Kantaram Phulsunder
                      Age: 45 years, Occu: Teacher
                      R/at Flat No. 202, Plot No.17,
                      Survey No. 67/1B, Vidyanagar,
                      Pune - 32                                     .....Petitioner
                              Versus

                      1. The State of Maharashtra

                      2. Commissioner for Handicapped Welfare
                         3, Church Road, Aayuktalay,
                         Pune 411 001.

                      3. The Divisional Social Welfare Officer,
                         Pune Division, PMT Canteen Building,
                         1st floor, Behind Janaki Hall,
                         Swargate, Pune 411 037.

                      4. The District Social Welfare Officer,
                         Group-A, Zilla Parishad,
                         Moledina Road, Camp,
                         Pune 411001.

                      5. Kamayani Prashikshan & Sanshodhan Society,
                         Gokhale Nagar, Pune 411016.

                      6. Head Mistress
                         Kamayani Vidyamandir
                         Nigadi, Pradhikaran, Pune 411044.                   ..Respondents
                                                     ..…

                      Mr. Abhishek T. Ingale a/w Ms. Rasika Satone, for the Petitioner.

                      Smt. V. R. Raje, A.G.P., for the Respondent - State.
                                                          ..…

                      Wakodikar                                                               1/8
                                                        31. WP-8448.2016.doc



             CORAM                    : M. S. KARNIK &
                                        SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.
             RESERVED ON              : 24th SEPTEMBER 2026
             PRONOUNCED ON            : 1st OCTOBER 2026


JUDGMENT (PER SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) :


1.    Heard learned Counsel for the parties.



2.    By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner is seeking directions

to the Respondents to fix the pay scale of the Petitioner considering

her date of appointment as 1 st July 1995 and calculate the arrears

taking into consideration yearly increments and pay the same to the

Petitioner along with consequential benefits.



3.    The Petitioner is a teacher working with the Respondent Nos.5

and 6. The Petitioner claims to have been appointed as a special

teacher by the Respondent No.5 in Respondent No.6 school on 1st

August, 1994. It is the case of the Petitioner that she worked

continuously as a special teacher from 1 st August, 1994 to 30 th April,

1995. However, she was given break in the service by the Respondent

No.5 from 1st May, 1995 to 30th June, 1995. This break was for about



Wakodikar                                                              2/8
                                                      31. WP-8448.2016.doc


2 months. Thereafter, on 30th June, 1995 reappointment was made

with effect from 1st July, 1995 and the same was approved by the

Respondent No.4. Thus, the Petitioner was reappointed and worked

as special teacher. Once again, there was a break in her service from

1st May, 1996 to 31st May, 1996. The Petitioner, thereafter, was

reappointed on 1st June, 1996, and worked as Special Teacher from

1st June 1996 to 30th April 1997. In this manner, there was always a

break given by the Respondent No.5 and the Petitioner was

reappointed. Ultimately on 6th August, 1999, the Petitioner was

reappointed, and since then has been continuing in her services. In

January 1996, the pay scale of the Petitioner was revised from 1350-

2200 to 4500-7000. The School Committee vide a Resolution dated

25th November, 2000 cancelled the increments of the Petitioner. The

Petitioner made representation to the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 on 11th

May, 2007 interalia seeking condonation of breaks, payment of

salary, consequential benefits and arrears. The Respondent No.3 vide

no objection order dated 29th April, 2008 granted no objection to

appointment of the Petitioner as permanent teacher and break in

services was held to be condoned. Further, applicable pay scale and

benefit was ordered to be given to the Petitioner. The Respondent


Wakodikar                                                            3/8
                                                       31. WP-8448.2016.doc


No.4 also passed an order, thereby condoning the break in the

services of the Petitioner on 17th July, 2009. Pursuant to the orders

passed by the Respondent Nos.3 and 4, the Petitioner made several

representations to the Respondent Nos.2 and 6. The Petitioner on

11th October, 2010 obtained an order of District Social Welfare under

the RTI Act, thereby stating that the employee is entitled to the

difference in the pay from the date of administrative approval. The

School Committee passed a Resolution on 27 th August, 2013,

recording that the proceedings of 25 th November, 2000 were not

entered in the minutes book, and further resolved that, the alleged

resolution be treated as passed on 25 th November, 2000. A legal

notice was sent by the Petitioner’s Advocate to the Respondents

thereby calling upon to comply with the orders, with chart of dues.

The said legal notice dated 13th June 2014, was replied on behalf of

the Respondent Nos.5 and 6, admitting the breaks, but denying

increments / pay scale benefits, and contending that the condonation

was only for the purpose of pension. In these premises, the Petitioner

had preferred the present writ petition.



4.    It is the contention of the Petitioner that once the Respondent


Wakodikar                                                             4/8
                                                      31. WP-8448.2016.doc


themselves, by the Order dated 17th July 2009, have condoned the

break in services of the Petitioner and extended that condonation

even to computation of pension, the same must extend to fixation of

pay scale, arrears and consequential benefits. The learned Counsel

for the Petitioner, Mr. Ingale, contended that the Respondents could

not resile from or dilute the effect of its own unchallenged order,

which has attained finality. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner,

Mr. Ingale, submitted that pension is the long-term liability on the

exchequer being a continuing payment computed on the basis of

qualifying service and last pay drawn. Pay fixation and arrears, by

contrast are the anterior and lesser benefits, arising during service

itself. He submitted that there was no rational basis on which the

authority could extend the larger and more burdensome benefit

while intending to withhold the smaller benefit that is logically

antecedent to it. He submitted that pension itself cannot be

computed without reference to continuous qualifying services and

correct pay fixation being made for that services. He submitted that

condoning the break ‘for pension’ necessarily presupposes that the

intervening period is treated as continuous service for all purposes,

including pay fixation, since pension is itself a derivative of


Wakodikar                                                            5/8
                                                     31. WP-8448.2016.doc


continuous service coupled with the applicable pay scale. He relied

upon the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in Gopal T.

Madnani v. State of Gujarat & Anr. (1984 SCC OnLine Guj 262)

where the Court rejected the contention that continuity of service

granted on condonation of break could be confined only to one

limited purpose, holding that payment of salary for the break period

was the natural result of condoning the break and granting

continuity of services. He submitted that there was a statutory duty

on the part of the Respondent to pay the prescribed pay scale to

aided school teacher. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Siyaram Education Society v. Chhaya D/o Baliram

Dhave & Ors. (2026 INSC 871).



5.   The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent- State has

opposed the writ petition. He submitted that the break was condoned

for the purpose of pension only. The learned Counsel appearing for

the Management also made submissions on the similar line. The

learned AGP appearing for the State Government, however,

contended that the Respondent- State will consider the same issue,

provided the Management submits its proposal. The learned Counsel


Wakodikar                                                           6/8
                                                       31. WP-8448.2016.doc


appearing for the Management stated that they would submit the

proposal accordingly.



6.      After hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the parties,

and after considering the documents on record, we are of the opinion

that the learned Counsel Mr.Ingale is right in submitting that, once

the break in services is condoned for the purpose of pension; then as

a corollary the break in services has to be considered as having

condoned for fixation of pay scale, arrears and consequential benefits

as well. We, therefore, direct the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 to submit a

proposal in light of what has been stated in the foregoing paragraphs

for the purpose of condonation of the break in services of the

Petitioner, for the purpose of fixation of pay scale, arrears and

consequential benefits, for the purpose of computation of pension as

well.



7.      Such proposal be sent to the Respondent Nos.1-3 by the

Respondent Nos.5 and 6 within a period of 4 weeks from today. In

the event such a proposal is made, the Respondent No.1-3 shall

consider the said proposal and pass appropriate orders within a


Wakodikar                                                             7/8
                                                        31. WP-8448.2016.doc


period of 4 weeks thereafter. In light of the aforesaid directions, the

Petition is disposed of.



8.    All parties to act upon an authenticated copy of this Order.




(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.)               (M. S. KARNIK, J.)




Wakodikar                                                              8/8