Back
2026 Supreme(Bom) 523
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
R. G. AVACHAT, AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, JJ.
Parshuram Umaji Dalavi – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary, School Education & Sports Department – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 6810 OF 2024
Decided On : 03-02-2026
Important Points
Subject
Service Law - Teachers' Service and Grant-in-Aid
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Distinction between transfers to existing aided posts and fresh appointments to new aided posts - Phased grant formula applies only to latter; no justification to impose partial grants or Shikshan Sevak pay on approved teachers with 3+ years unaided service transferred internally. (Paras 5.8, 5.9)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner qualified and appointed on unaided assistant teacher post in 2008 with approval in 2014 after due process. Transferred in 2017 under Rule 41 to vacant fully aided assistant teacher post in same management’s junior college. Transfer approved but salary grant limited to 20% from 2017 increasing 20% yearly to 100% in fifth year; revised order confirmed phased release.
Findings of Court:
Impugned approval order quashed; Deputy Director to issue fresh order within eight weeks approving 100% salary grants from date of transfer.
Issues: Whether partial phased salary grant policy applicable to transfer of approved teacher with nine years unaided service to existing fully aided sanctioned post; validity of requiring undertaking for partial grants.
Ratio Decidendi: Transfer under Rule 41 to sanctioned aided post from unaided one in same management entitles full salary grant immediately, as it preserves pay and benefits; phased policy for new posts or short-service teachers only; no rational basis to deprive eligible transferees.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
For the Petitioner: Mr. Prashant Bhavake
For the Respondent: Mr. V. M. Mali, AGP
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. teacher qualified, appointed unaided, transferred to sanctioned aided post. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. court quashes impugned order, directs 100% grant approval. (Para 2 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. petitioner seeks full grant; state defends gr partial policy. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT :
Ajit B. Kadethankar, J.
1. Subject Matter : Despite the petitioner having been appointed on a fully aided post of Assistant Teacher by due process of law, the Deputy Director of Education while granting approval, approved the release of salary grants partially at the rate of 20% for the irst year and thereafter increasing the same by 20% for every subsequent year. The Petitioner seeks directions to the Deputy Director of Education to modify the approval order thereby making the salary grants payable to the Petitioner 100% efective from the date of his transfer on the subject matter fully aided post.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Considering the subject matter of petition and the facts demonstrated in the petition, we heard the matter for inal disposal.
3. Facts in brief :
3.1. We ind the facts are uncontroverted. The Petitioner holds qualiication of M.A., B.Ed. and as such he is qualiied to be appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher.
3.2. In the year 2008, one unaided post of assistant teacher had fallen vacant in Shri. Chha. Shivaji High School and Junior College, Mangaon run by the Respondent No.3–management. It is not disputed that said post was already sanctioned one and was not a newly created one. By following due process of law, the management appointed the Petitioner on the said post. In due course of time, the Deputy Director of Education also granted approval to the Petitioner’s appointment vide order dated 25th July 2014.
3.3. In the year 2017, one fully aided post of assistant teacher had fallen vacant in Respondent No.4 – junior college run and administered by the Respondent No.3-management. Hence, taking recourse to Rule 41 of The Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 [for short, “MEPS Rules”], the management ‘transferred’ Petitioner from the unaided post of assistant teacher to the fully aided post of assistant teacher in Respondent No.4 – junior college.
3.4. Consequent to Petitioner’s transfer, a proposal seeking approval to the transfer was moved by the management to the Deputy Director of Education. On 25th April 2018, the Deputy Director of Education issued an approval to the Petitioner’s transfer holding him entitled only for 20% grant-in-aid with efect from 1st July 2017.
3.5. On 23rd August 2023, the Deputy Director of Education, vide impugned order revised the approval thereby holding the Petitioner entitled with a rise of 20% grant-in-aid salary beneit increasing annually and making it 100% salary grant admissible from the 5th year.
3.6. The Petitioner is aggrieved by a partial release of salary grant without there being any rational reason behind it and has therefore, preferred the present petition.
4. Submissions :
Petitioner’s Submissions :
4.1. Mr. Bhavake, learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that there is no objection by any authority as regards the qualiication of petitioner, vacancy of the subject matter post, as also to the Petitioner’s transfer to the subject matter post. He submits that he has completed atleast 9 years on the unaided post of Assistant Teacher.
4.2. He would further submit that the Petitioner fails to understand why the Deputy Director of Education has applied a formula of partial release of salary grant, making it fully aided only with efect from the ifth year from the date of his transfer.
4.3. He would further submit that in fact once the Petitioner is held to be eligible to occupy the fully aided post of assistant teacher, without there being any impediment, the Petitioner is absolutely entitled for 100% salary grant right from the date of his transfer on the subject matter post.
4.4. As such, Mr. Bhavake, learned Counsel for the Petitioner prays to allow the
