2026:BHC-NAG:622-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO.2715 OF 2012 Vaidya Balram s/o Rambhau Kakpure, Aged about 58 years, Occupation Service as Lecturer in Shree Ayurved Mahavidyalaya, Hanuman Nagar, Nagpur R/o R-197, Reshimbag, Nagpur … Petitioner -vs-

1. The Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, through its Registrar, Wani Road, Mhasrul, Dindori Road, Nasik

2. The Director of Ayurved, Maharashtra State, Government Dental College & Hospital Building, 4th Floor, Saint George Hospital, P. Dimelo Road, Mumbai-1.

3. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Dept. of Medical Education & Drugs, Mantralaya, Mumbai

4. Bhartiya Vaidyak Samanvaya Samiti, through its Secretary, Dhanwantari Marg, Hanuman Nagar, Nagpur

5. The Principal, Shree Ayurved Maha Vidyalaya, run by Bhartiya Vaidyak Samanvaya Samiti, Hanuman Nagar, Nagpur … Respondents.

Shri S. S. Sharma, Advocate for petitioner.

Shri J. B. Jaiswal, Advocate for respondent No.1-MUHS.

Shri P. P. Pendke, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.2 and 3/State.

Shri Ashwin Deshpande, Advocate for respondent Nos.4 and 5.

CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ.

DATED : 9th January, 2026 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : ANIL S. KILOR, J.)

The present petition pertains to promotion on the post of Reader. The petitioner is claiming deemed date of promotion with effect from 28/12/2010 whereas it was given with effect from

21/03/2012.

2. The brief facts of the present case are as under :

The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Demonstrator on 19/09/1979 in respondent No.5-College. Said post was later on converted as Lecturer and as such, the petitioner served on the said post from 10/12/1990. The post of Reader became vacant on 31/07/2010 due to retirement of Vaidya Upadhyaya. Accordingly, the Committee was constituted which held meeting on 25/10/2010 wherein the petitioner was selected for the post of Reader in Rog Nidan.

3. Vaidya Upadhyaya on 11/02/2011 submitted a complaint to respondent No.2-Director of Ayurveda opposing the petitioner’s promotion. Thereupon the Director conducted an enquiry in the light of allegations made in the complaint of Vaidya Upadhyaya and it was found that the complaint was without any substance and accordingly the order of promotion was issued to the petitioner on 21/03/2012. On the same date, the petitioner joined on the post of Reader and as such the effect to the promotion of the petitioner was given from

21/03/2012.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. Shri S. S. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that as there is no dispute that the petitioner was selected by the Committee for promotion as Reader in the meeting held on 25/10/2010 and immediately on the next day, proposal was forwarded to the respondent No.2-Director of Ayurved for grant of approval to the petitioner’s promotion, the petitioner’s promotion ought to have considered from the date of selection. He however, submits that the petitioner is not only entitled to deemed date of promotion but also for the monetary benefits.

It is argued that the complaint of Vaidya Upadhyaya was found to be frivolous and since there was no substance found in such complaint, the petitioner cannot be denied the deemed date of promotion. For this purpose he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in case of Union of India and ors. vs. K. V. Jankiraman and ors. (1991) 4 SCC 109.

4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader strongly opposed the petition and submits that the date of joining of the petitioner on promotional post is 21/03/2012 and therefore the prayer of the petitioner for grant of deemed date of promotion cannot be considered. He further submits that the petitioner cannot claim solely monetary benefits from the date of selection as he did not work from the said deemed date i.e. 25/10/2010 till 21/03/2012 and as such applying the principle of ‘no work no pay’, su