Mohammed Alik Ishak Patel vs Dr. Ambedkar College Of Commerce And Economic And 4 Ors.
- Court
- Bombay High Court
CNR No : HCBM020025402008
2026:BHC-OS:24303-DB
WP-915-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 915 OF 2008
Mohammed Ali Ishak Patel
aged 60 years
c/o Dr. Sheikh Mukhtar
Plot No.25/1, Bari Colony
Madani Gate, Next to Takadkar Society,
Aurangabad-431001
]
]
]
]
]
].....Petitioner
Versus
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]....Respondents
1. Dr. Ambedkar College of Commerce and
Economics through the Principal
Wadala, Mumbai-400031.
2. Secretary
People’s Education Society,
Anand Bhavan, Fort, Mumbai-400031.
3. The Education Inspector,
Greater Mumbai, South Zone,
Mumbai-400007.
4. Deputy Director of Education,
Greater Mumbai Jawahar Bhavan,
Marine Drive, Mumbai.
5. The Accountant General, Maharashtra-1,
Mumbai-400020.
.....
Ms. Rishika Agarwal a/w Mr. Tanmay Vasane, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Vikrant Parashurami, A.G.P., for the Respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5-
State.
..…
Manisha
1/10
Digitally signed by
MANISHA
BALKRISHNA
TALEKAR
Date: 2026.11.06
16:59:09 +0530
MANISHA
BALKRISHNA
TALEKAR
Uploaded on - 06/11/2026 Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 17:18:25
WP-915-2026.doc
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK &
SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.
th
DATE : 5 NOVEMBER 2026
JUDGMENT [PER SANDESH D. PATIL, J.] :-
1. By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner is seeking a relief
th
of quashing and setting aside the letters dated 27 October 2006 and
th
7 December, 2007 which are annexed at Exhibit-H and Exhibit-O
respectively to the Petition. The Petitioner is also seeking a writ of
mandamus for directing the Respondent Authorities to sanction the
Petitioner's pension application and compute the pension and
gratuity amount of the Petitioner with the starting date of his
th
continuous employment as 19 July 1973. This Court vide Order
th
dated 17 July, 2008 had issued Rule in this Petition. The matter is
placed before us for final hearing. It is the case of the Petitioner that
the Petitioner after graduating with the degree of Bachelor of
th
Commerce on 17 July, 1973 started working as an Assistant Teacher
in Moinul-Uloom High School, Aurangabad. The Petitioner was in the
th
said School for approximately four years from the period 19 July
st nd th
1973 to 31 March 1974 and again from 2 July, 1974 to 4 July,
1977. From the year 1977, the Petitioner obtained Degree of Masters
Manisha
2/10
Uploaded on - 06/11/2026 Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 17:18:25
WP-915-2026.doc
th th
of Commerce. The Petitioner thereafter from 4 July, 1977 to 15
June, 1978 worked as Assistant Teacher in Burhani College of Arts
and Commerce, Nesbit Road, Mazgaon, an aided junior college. The
Petitioner worked at an aided post in the said college. Later on from
th th
16 June, 1978 to 19 June, 1980 the Petitioner worked as Assistant
Teacher in Anjuman-I-Islam’s Akbar Peerbhoy College, an aided
st
junior college. On 1 July, 1980, the Petitioner started his service at
the Respondent-College as a permanent junior lecturer. It is to be
noted that the Respondent-College was an aided junior college. On
rd
3 July, 1999 the Petitioner was upgraded to senior scale as per
th st
Government Circular dated 16 October, 1992 with effect from 1
st
July, 1992. The Petitioner retired on 31 January, 2005 upon
reaching superannuation, as an Assistant Teacher in Commerce after
completing a period of 32 years and 6 months in service. The
nd
Petitioner thereafter, on 22 August, 2006 submitted his pension
records to the Respondent No.3. The Respondent No.3 vide a letter
th
dated 27 October, 2006 informed the Respondent No.1 that the
Petitioner’s Application cannot be granted. The Petitioner thereafter,
made an Application to the Pension Adalat against the refusal to
grant pension. The Petitioner relied upon the pension approval
Manisha
3/10
Uploaded on - 06/11/2026 Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 17:18:25
WP-915-2026.doc
granted to his colleague, Mr. Munnalal Premraj Pandit, who was
similarly untrained upon his retirement. The Division Commissioner
of Pension Adalat wrote letters to Respondent No.3 seeking
th
clarification regarding this un-uniform approach. On 7 December,
2007, the Petitioner received a letter from the Pension Adalat stating
that the Petitioner is not entitled to pensionary benefits on the basis
of Rule 6 of the Pension Scheme under Government Circular dated
th
4 November, 1968 (Page 123 of the Petition).
2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.
Perused the documents on record.
3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that similarly
situated person namely Mr. Munnalal Premraj Pandit was granted
pensionary benefits inspite of the fact that he was an untrained
teacher. She submitted that the Petitioner has put up nearly 32 years
and 6 months in the service and hence he could not be denied the
benefits. She submitted that although the Petitioner had possessed
qualification of Masters of Commerce yet he did not possess the
qualification of D.Ed. or B.Ed. which is considered as training
qualification/ course for teaching in School. However, same cannot
Manisha
4/10
Uploaded on - 06/11/2026 Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 17:18:25
WP-915-2026.doc
be the only ground for rejection of the pensionary benefits. She
submitted that salary of the Petitioner was paid throughout by the
Respondent-State of Maharashtra and therefore, only on the ground
that the Petitioner was untrained, he could not be denied the benefits
of the pension. She submitted that the act of the Petitioner is
contrary to the law laid down by this Hon’ble Court in various
judgments and that since the Petitioner has put up his entire life to
serve the institution and was regularly paid salary by the State of
Maharashtra, pensionary benefits ought not to have been denied to
the Petitioner.
4. Learned Counsel for the Respondent-State however, denied
that the Petitioner is entitled to any pension. He submitted that the
Petitioner has not completed post training course i.e. B.Ed. or its
equivalent recognized by the Department as training qualification
and therefore, was not treated to be a trained teacher for the purpose
of pensionary benefits. He submitted that the after the Government
th
Resolution dated 4 November, 1968, teachers who have completed
more than two years post training service are treated as holding
permanent post substantively for the purpose of pension scheme. He
Manisha
5/10
Uploaded on - 06/11/2026 Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 17:18:25
WP-915-2026.doc
submitted that the Petitioner has not completed training qualification
and hence, he is not eligible for the pensionary benefits. He prayed
for dismissal of this Petition.
5. We have gone through the Judgments of this Court in K. V.
1
Krishnan Vs. RGE State of Maharashtra and Ors. which is annexed at
Exhibit-P to the Petition. The Division Bench of this Court has
observed in paragraph nos.4 as under:
“4. We have heard the parties to the petition. It was
brought to our notice that the petitioner has rendered
substantial period of service in Ramnivas Ruia College
for about 18 years and was treated as confirmed full
time teacher against a sanctioned post and his services
were approved from time to time by the Deputy
Director of Education and the said orders are placed on
record. In these circumstances, in our opinion, it does
not lie in the mouth of Respondents No.1 to 3 that too
after retirement of the petitioner, to contend that the
petitioner throughout his service was treated as
untrained teacher and thus was not entitled to pension
and gratuity as per Rules. Petitioner was however
asked to acquire training qualification. We find that the
petitioner was already confirmed and recognized full
time teacher. The pension scheme would be very much
applicable to the petitioner and as a consequence
thereof he would be entitled to benefit of pension and
gratuity. Having held as we direct respondent Nos. 1 to
3 to sanction and release the amount of pension and
gratuity to the petitioner within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of writ from this
Court.”
1 Writ Petition No.1556 of 2000, dt. 25/08/2000, High Court of Judicature at Bombay
Manisha
6/10
Uploaded on - 06/11/2026 Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 17:18:25
WP-915-2026.doc
6. Similar issue fell for consideration in Asaram Yesuji Ghogare
2
Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. wherein after considering the
Judgment in Smt. Umabai w/o. Ramkrishna Deshmukh Vs. The State
3
of Maharashtra and Ors. , and Smt. Gokula Vilas Patil Vs. The
4
Education Officer (Primary) Sangli and Ors. , the Division Bench of
this Court had observed in paragraph no.7 as under:
7. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has placed
before us a copy of the communication dated 9th
February, 2022, issued by the Deputy Secretary, State of
Maharashtra, School Education and Sports
Department, addressed to the Director of Primary
Education, Education Directorate, Maharashtra State,
Pune, taking cognizance of several orders passed by
this Court as well as the dismissal of the Special Leave
Petition and the Review Petition filed on behalf of the
State in similar matters. Consequentially by the said
communication, which is marked as 'X-1' for
identification, the Director of Primary Education was
informed that such untrained teachers, who were
employed prior to 01.07.1992, were to be considered
as deemed trained teachers. Similarly, considering
various orders passed by this Court which were
approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a decision has
been taken by the State of Maharashtra, that similar
employees, who were appointed after 01.07.1972 as
untrained teachers and have superannuated after
putting in lengthy service, should be treated as a
special case and they should be granted pensionary
2 Writ Petition No.10467 of 2021, dt. 22/05/2022 High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at
Aurangabad
3 Writ Petition No.6143 of 2016, dt. 04/07/2019, High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at
Aurangabad
4 Writ Petition No.5110 of 2012, dt. 13/12/2017, High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at
Aurangabad
Manisha
7/10
Uploaded on - 06/11/2026 Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 17:18:25
WP-915-2026.doc
benefits. No doubt, this communication is restricted
only to those who have approached this Court by filing
Writ Petitions.
8. It should be the endeavour of one and all, that
unnecessary litigation should be avoided and if
possible necessary directions be issued in such manner
that unnecessary litigation could be prevented. The
case in hands is one such case wherein we find this
litigation could have avoided considering the view
taken by this Court, vide judgment dated 13.12.2017
in Smt. Gokula Vilas Patil (supra). It appears that the
Education Department has done little to convey the
said judgment to all its Departments so as to initiate
appropriate steps, which would not only protect such
petitioner from suffering rigors of tardy litigation, but
would also curtail unnecessary litigation in court.
9. Considering the above, we find that the direction,
as issued in Smt. Umabai w/o. Ramkrishna Deshmukh
(supra), needs to be issued in this case as well.
7. Further this Court in the said Judgment had issued the
following directions:
11. We direct respondent no.1 to circulate this order as
well as judgment dated 13.12.2017 delivered in Smt.
Gokula Vilas Patil (supra), to all Zilla Parishads in the
State of Maharashtra so as to locate similar cases and
initiate remedial steps for granting them the benefits in
view of such directions so as to prevent the employees
from approaching the Court and in order to curb
unnecessary litigation in this Court. A specific circular
stating that this law shall apply to similarly placed
employees, shall be issued.
Manisha
8/10
Uploaded on - 06/11/2026 Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 17:18:25
WP-915-2026.doc
8. We are not impressed by the arguments of learned A.G.P.
The arguments of learned A.G.P are in teeth of the Judgment dated
th
4 May, 2022 passed by this Court in Asaram Yesuji Ghogare Vs. The
State of Maharashtra and Ors. (supra) .
9. Taking into consideration the Judgment in K. V. Krishnan Vs.
RGE State of Maharashtra and Ors. (supra) , Smt. Umabai w/o.
Ramkrishna Deshmukh Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. and
Smt. Gokula Vilas Patil Vs. The Education Officer (Primary) Sangli
and Ors. (supra) and Asaram Yesuji Ghogare Vs. The State of
5
Maharashtra and Ors. , we have no hesitation to hold that the
Petitioner who has put in 32 years and 6 months in his service is
entitled to pensionary benefits and that the Petition deserves to be
allowed. Hence, the following Order:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition No.915 of 2008 is allowed in terms of
prayer Clauses (a) and (b) which reads thus:
“a. That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a
writ of certiorari, or a writ, order or direction in
the nature of certiorari to quash and set aside the
th th
letters dated 27 October, 2006 and 7 December,
2007, respectively (annexed to the Petition as
Exhibits ‘H’ and ‘O’).
5 Writ Petition No.10467 of 2021, High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad
Manisha
9/10
Uploaded on - 06/11/2026 Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 17:18:25
WP-915-2026.doc
b. That this Hon’ble Court be please to issue a
writ of mandamus, or a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus and direct the
Respondent authorities to sanction the Petitioner’s
pension application and compute the pension and
gratuity amount of the Petitioner with the starting
th
date of his continuous employment as 19 July,
1973.”
10. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
11. In view of above, Writ Petition No.915 of 2008 stands
disposed of.
12. There shall be no order as to costs.
(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
Manisha
10/10
Uploaded on - 06/11/2026 Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 17:18:25
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)