Digitally signed by ARUNA ARUNA SANDEEP TALWALKAR Date:

2025.03.04

11:23:24 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 77 OF 2022 Smt. Anjali Anand Khare. … Petitioner.

Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents.

****

Mr. A.V. Anturkar, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Yash Agarwal, i/b. Mr.

Vaibhav Kulkarni, for the Petitioner.

Mr. Rajendra Anbhule a/w. Ms. Nisha Ahire, Ms. Pooja Pal, for Respondent No. 4.

Ms. S.S. Bhende, AGP for Respondent/State.

****

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.

DATE : 27^th FEBRUARY, 2025 JUDGMENT (Per RAVINDRA V GHUGE,J)

1. Leave to add prayer clause (d-1) with regard to the claim for pension. Addition be carried out forthwith.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

3. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits on instructions that since the Petitioner would superannuate in March, 2025, prayer clause (d) will not be pressed. The learned Senior Advocate on instructions submits that the Petitioner is now concerned with the Pension since she would be helpless after superannuation if the pension is not paid. All other issues are not significant for her considering the importance of pension.

4. The Petitioner has put forth prayer clauses (a), (b) & (d-1)

which read as under :

“a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 directing the Respondent No. 2 & 3 to condone/set aside all the objections raised against her and her services be regularised under the salary head of the Maharashtra .State Government - Grant-in-Aid Salary budget.

b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus under Article 226 directing the Respondent No. 3 to continue the payment of salary grant to the Respondent No. 4 since date of joining of the Petitioner.

d-1) That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent Nos. 1,2,3 to disburse the pension to the Petitioner on her superannuation and all other post retiral benefits in a time bound manner.”

5. The dates and sequence of events are relevant in this case which bring up peculiar facts and circumstances. We would summarise the same as under :

(a) The State Government is said to have introduced a Government Resolution dated 4.9.1986 with the title as under :

" खर्चा(cid:3)(cid:4)मध्ये(cid:8) का(cid:3)टकासर म(cid:13)त्ये(cid:15) आणि(cid:18) स(cid:8)वा(cid:3) नि(cid:21)वा(cid:13)त्ती(cid:23)म(cid:24)ळे(cid:8) रिरका(cid:3)म्ये(cid:3) हो(cid:29)(cid:18)(cid:3)-ये(cid:3) पदा(cid:3)वार सरळे स(cid:8)वा(cid:3) प्रवा(cid:8)शा(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:8) (cid:21)(cid:8)म(cid:18)(cid:15)का कारण्ये(cid:3)वार बं$दा(cid:23).”

(b) The University issued an order of appointment to the Petitioner on the post of Assistant, on 14.2.1987.

(c) The Petitioner received a time bound promotion after 12 years, on 21.4.1999.

(d) The Joint Director of Higher Education, Respondent No. 3, informed the University, Respondent No. 4, vide its Communication dated 12.11.2003, that the salary expenditure incurred on the salaries of 36 employees, is being refused by the Government and that they cannot be accommodated under the Grant-in-aid Salary Budget.

(e) Respondent No. 2 Director of Higher Education, Maharashtra State, informed Respondent No. 3 on 31.12.2003 and addressed a copy to Respondent No. 4 University, that out of the 36 cases, 32 cases would be regularised and 4 cases would be excluded from the regularization. The Petitioner is included in these 4 excluded cases.

(f) The University requested the Government vide its Communication dated 17.3.2004, to regularize the cases of the 4 excluded employees.

(g) On 8.7.2009, the Petitioner was promoted as a Senior Assistant and a confirmation order was issued on 26.3.2011.

(h) On 21.3.2012, the Petitioner received the benefit of “Assure