Bombay High Court
DR. MILIND JAGANNATH JOSHIversusSHIVAJI UNIVERSITY THR. ITS REGISTRARAND ANR
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The petitioners are estopped from retracting their consent; the Shivaji University Pension Scheme, 2015, remains applicable and the petitions are dismissed.
Summary
The petitioners, former employees of Shivaji University, challenged the applicability of the Shivaji University Pension Scheme, 2015, contending that they should instead be governed by the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. They argued that the consent letters they signed did not give them a genuine choice and that the scheme unfairly froze their salary and leave encashment calculations as of 1 April 2015. The University countered that the consent letters expressly offered an option to accept or reject the 2015 scheme and that, having accepted it, the petitioners were bound by it and could not retract after retirement. The Court examined the consent letters, found that the petitioners knowingly opted for the 2015 scheme, and held that they are estopped from seeking benefits under the older rules. Relying on the precedent of Rajasthan Agricultural University v. State of Rajasthan, the Court dismissed the petitions, confirming the University’s right to enforce the 2015 pension scheme.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners can withdraw their consent to the Shivaji University Pension Scheme, 2015, after retirement and claim pension benefits under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- pension scheme
- consent
- estoppel
- civil service pension rules
- university employees
- writ petition
- retirement benefits
Judgment
3-WP-8472-2022.doc
Digitally signed IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
by HARISH
HARISH VITHAL
VITHAL CHAUDHARI CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CHAUDHARI Date:
2026.08.17
18:45:17 +0530 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 8472 OF 2022
Dr. Milind Jagannath Joshi ...Petitioner.
Versus
Shivaji University Thr. Its Registrarand Another ...Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 15234 OF 2022
Capt. Atindra Jaswant Katkar ...Petitioner.
Versus
Shivaji University And Another ...Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 15279 OF 2022
Smt. Swati Sanjay Kharade ...Petitioner.
Versus
Shivaji University Vidya Nagar
Thr Its Registrar Kolhapur And Another ...Respondents.
——————
Mr. Narendra V. Bandiwadekar, Senior Advocate (Through V. C.) a/w Sagar Ashok
Mane, Rushikesh Jagdale & Neha Farakate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Yuvraj Narvankar a/w Rahul Patil for Respondent No. 1.
Mr. M. V. Mali, AGP for the Respondent-State in WP/8472/2022.
Ms. T. J. Kapre, AGP for the Respondent-State in WP/15279/2022.
Mr. S. B. Kalel, AGP for the Respondent-State in WP/15234/2022.
——————
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
Date : August 17, 2026.
P. C. :
Harish 1 of 5
3-WP-8472-2022.doc
1. By this group of petitions, the challenge by the petitioners is to
the pension scheme of 2015 named as "Shivaji University Pension
Scheme, 2015" and for seeking a declaration that the pension scheme of
2015 did not apply to the petitioners, who will continue to be governed
by the provisions of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules,
1982.
2. The petitioners are working as Programmer in the Computer
Section, Assistant Registrar (Security), and Senior System Analyst. The
petitioner in Writ Petition No. 8472 of 2022 was appointed on
05.02.1989; the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 15234 of 2022 was
appointed on 19.07.2001; and the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 15297
of 2022 was appointed on 31.12.1988. After their retirement in
2020/2022/2023, these petitions came to be iled challenging the
pension scheme of the year 2015.
3. The contention of Mr. Bandiwadekar, learned Senior Advocate
appearing for the petitioners, is that by reason of the Shivaji University
Pension Scheme, 2015, the salary for the purpose of considering the
grant of pension was frozen to 01.04.2015, and without any beneits of
commutation of pension. Similarly the encashment of leave was also
frozen to the date of 01.04.2015. He would contend that though the
consent letter was signed by the petitioners, there was no option given
to them and the petitioners, in order to save their employment, signed
Harish 2 of 5
3-WP-8472-2022.doc
the consent letters. He submits that the consent letters merely asked
for consent to the pension scheme and did not give any option of
electing the old pension scheme or the Shivaji University Pension
Scheme of 2015. He further submits that immediately after the consent
letters were given, representations were made with the Shivaji
University; however, the same went un-responded, and therefore, the
petitions came to be iled.
4. Upon a query as to the dates of retirement, Mr. Bandiwadekar,
learned Senior Advocate submits that the present petitions were iled
after the petitioners retired from service and are drawing pension as
per the pension scheme of 2015. Insofar as the issue of delay is
concerned, as the pension scheme was implemented in the year 2015,
the contention of Mr. Bandiwadekar is that representations were made
immediately thereafter, and the petitions came to be iled after
retirement, which cannot be said to sufer from any delay.
5. Mr. Narvankar, learned counsel appearing for the University,
submitted that having accepted the pension scheme of 2015, it is now
too late in the day to withdraw the consent. He would further submit
that in an identical case of, Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner
vs. State of Rajasthan and others (Civil Appeal No. 7160 of 2013), the
Hon’ble Apex Court did not permit the employees to retract from the
pension scheme after giving their option. Mr. Narvankar would further
Harish 3 of 5
3-WP-8472-2022.doc
point out that these are self-funded posts of the University and,
therefore, it is for the University to decide the applicable pension
scheme.
6. We have considered the submissions and perused the records.
7. It is undisputed that the pension scheme was loated in the year
2015 and the consent letter speciically asks for the consent of the
employees to opt for the pension scheme of 2015 or not. It is not
correct to submit that the consent letter did not give any option, as it
speciically provides for an option of not accepting the pension scheme
of 2015. The pension scheme of 2015 speciically provides that once the
pension scheme is opted, there is no option of withdrawing from the
said pension scheme.
8. Being aware of all the terms and conditions of the pension
scheme of 2015, the petitioners gave their consent for the scheme,
continued with their services from 2015 till their retirement in
2020/2022/2023, and having accepted the pension after retirement,
have now sought to challenge the applicability of the scheme. We are
not inclined to entertain the challenge after the consent had been given
knowingly by the petitioners, who are qualiied persons. The
petitioners, having opted for the pension scheme of 2015, are now
estopped from claiming that the scheme is not beneicial to them. The
consent letter clearly gives an option to accept or not to accept the
Harish 4 of 5
3-WP-8472-2022.doc
scheme, and having exercised the option of scheme of 2015 the
petitioners cannot be permitted to now elect otherwise.
9. The decision in the case of Rajasthan Agricultural University
(supra) rightly notes that each employer university would have its own
scheme with regard to payment of retirement beneits to its employees.
Similar would be the case here. The University had implemented the
pension scheme of 2015, which was accepted by the petitioners and
now it is not permissible for the petitioners to retract their consent
after retirement and seek beneit under the Maharashtra Civil Services
(Pension) Rules.
10. In light of the above, the petitions fail and stand dismissed.
[Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
Harish 5 of 5
Checking your session…