14-WP 2678-21.DOC Prajakta Vartak IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2678 OF 2021 Ramesh Rajarampant Sonwalkar ...Petitioner Vs. The Education Officer (Secondary), M.C.G.M. & Ors. ...Respondents _________ Mr. Prajakt Arjunwadkar with Mr. O. S. Shinde for Petitioner. Ms. Jyoti Chavan, Addl. G. P. with Ms. Nazia Sheikh, AGP for State. Ms. Pushpa Yadav for BMC. __________ CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATE: 25 AUGUST 2026 P.C. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying for the following reliefs:- “a) This Hon'ble Court by way of appropriate Writ, order or directions, direct the Respondents to immediately act upon the letter No. Ma.sha.vi /2/361 dated 28/11/1985 and the letter No. Ma.sha.vi/969 dated 23/07/2019 and to take immediate decision about the condonation of break in the service of the petitioner. c) This Hon'ble Court by way of appropriate Writ, order or directions, direct the Respondents to pay all the dues of pension and gratuity with interest to the Petitioner immediately. d) This Hon'ble Court by way of appropriate Writ, order or directions, direct the Respondents to pay the yearly increment from the date of appointment. d) This Hon'ble Court by appropriate Writ, order or direction direct the Respondents to pay the compensation for mental agony caused to the Petitioner due to the negligence of the Respondent. e) Any other order as in the nature and circumstances of the case may require, be granted in favour of the Petitioner.” 2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner superannuated on 30 June 2003. Nonetheless, nearly 18 years after his retirement, by the present petition, the 25 August 2026 PRAJAKTA SAGAR VARTAK Digitally signed by PRAJAKTA SAGAR VARTAK Date: 2026.08.28 19:20:37 +0530 14-WP 2678-21.DOC petitioner has raised a grievance that the period of break in service has not been taken into consideration for computing his pensionable service. This despite the fact that he has been receiving pension for almost 18 years from the date of his retirement till the filing of the present petition. We find that there is no explanation whatsoever for the delay in raising such grievance, which, in our opinion, ought to have been raised immediately on his retirement. 3. It is not the case of the petitioner that he is not receiving pension. His grievance is only that a certain period ought to be reckoned for the purpose of computing his pensionable service. It appears from the record that the petitioner made a representation to that effect sometime in the year 2019. 4. Considering the aforesaid facts, in our opinion, if any such representation is pending and has not yet been decided, the same be decided by the Designated Officer in accordance with law. 5. The petition is accordingly dismissed, however, subject to the aforesaid observations. No costs. (DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.) 25 August 2026