20_WP_1325_2021.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1325 OF 2021 Sudhir Shankar Wagh Age:67 years, Occupation: Nil B-6/6, Raksha Lekha Housing Society, Gajendra Nagar, Near Datt Wadi, Dist. - Pune – 411 030. ...Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Maharashta through the Secretary, Higher and Technical Eduation and Employment Department Mantralaya, Mumbai 400032 2. The Director of Technical Education, Maharashtra State 3, Mahapalika Marg, Mumbai – 400001 3. All India Council for Technical Education (A.I.C.T.E.) (through Regional Officer Western Region Office, Industrial Assurance Buidling, 2nd Floor, Veer Nariman Road, Churchgate, Mumbai 400020 4. Savitribai Phule, Pune University, (through the Registrar), Ganeshkhind Road, Pune 5. D.Y. Patil Pratishthan through its Secretary, Having office at 1216A, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur, Dist. Kolhapur 6. Principal, D.Y. Patil College of Engineering, Sector No. 29, Nigdi-Pradhikaran, Akurdi, Pune – 411 044. ...Respondents Prasad PRASAD RAJENDRASING RAJPUT Digitally signed by PRASAD RAJENDRASING RAJPUT Date: 2026.09.05 13:28:11 +0530 20_WP_1325_2021.DOC _______ Mr. Onkar Wable a/w Dattatray Devkar, for Petitioner. Mr. P.P. Kakde, Addl. GP a/w Nisha M. Mehra, AGP for Respondent – State. Mr. Rajendra Anbhule, for Respondent No.4. Mr. Akshay Patil a/w Ganesh Inamdar, Akshay Kamble and Neha Patil i/by Vivaka Partners, for Respondent Nos.5 and 6. _______ CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATE: 31st AUGUST 2026 P.C. 1. By the present Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has prayed for the following substantive reliefs: “a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to exercise the powers vested in it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and to issue a Writ of Mandamus and / or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ and direction, directing Respondent Nos. 5 to 6 to implement the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 1262 of 2018 dated 7th September, 2018 and the order passed by the Grievance Committee in Application 2/2014 dated 26.4.2019 forthwith and the Respondent No.5 and 6 may be directed to pay the arrears of the 6th pay commission to the Petitioner along with interest thereupon w.e.f 1.1.2006. b) Cost of the petition may be provided for the petitioner. c) Such order and further reliefs that may be necessary may kindly be passed.” 2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties on the earlier occasion. The grievance of the Petitioner that he is being deprived of the benefit of the orders passed by the Grievance Committee of the University which has attained finality by the dismissal of the writ petition as also the Special Leave Petition. A detailed order dated 11.08.2026 passed on the present proceedings on the earlier occasion is required to be noted, which reads thus: “1. The grievance of the petitioner is that the order dated 26 April 2019 passed by the Grievance Committee constituted under Section 79 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016, which is a statutory authority, has not been implemented by respondent Nos.5 and 6. Page 2 of 5 Prasad 20_WP_1325_2021.DOC 2. We find from the record that respondent Nos.5 and 6 have filed Writ Petition No.2982 of 2025 in this Court, challenging the said order passed by the Grievance Committee. The said petition was dismissed by an order dated 3 March 2025. We find that the decision of this Court passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the petition, was assailed before the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.12488 of 2025 which came to be dismissed by the Supreme Court by an order dated 9 May 2025. Also there was a review petition being Stamp No.25112 of 2025, which was filed seeking review of the order, which came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge by an order dated 28 July 2026. In these circumstances, the proceedings are before us. 3. We find from the record that the petitioner has moved before the Grievance Committee for arrears of salary amounting to Rs.26,26,253/-, leave encashment of Rs.11,32,250/- and salary of last month of service Rs.87,658/-, total amount of Rs.38,46,161/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12%. The said claim was accepted by the Grievance Redressal Committee by an order in question dated 26 April 2019. However, almost for a period of seven years, the petitioner is engaged in the litigation by respondent Nos.5 and 6 and despite the proceedings having attained finality upon dismissal of the SLP by the Supreme Court, the petitioner is still required to litigate. In these circumstances, we have no manner of doubt that the petitioner cannot be relegated to proceedings to execute the orders passed by the Grievance Committee, and the payment of such dues cannot be delayed, more particularly, considering that the petitioner is a retired employee. 4. In these circumstances, we direct respondent Nos.5 and 6 to deposit in this Court within 10 days from today, an amount of Rs.38,46,161/- alongwith the interest calculated with effect from 13 January 2014 at the rate of 10% as granted by the co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the proceedings of Writ Petition (l) No.36169 of 2024 (Narayari Pundalik Pathade vs. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai) decided on 11 March 2025. There shall not be any further extension for respondent Nos.5 and 6 to deposit the said amount in the Court. 5. List this proceeding on 24 August 2026. (FOB) 6. Liberty to mention if the amount is deposited at an earlier date, and intimation of the same be given to the Advocate for the petitioner.” 3. We find from the record that the Petitioner had approached the Grievance Committee on 13.01.2014, which is almost 12 years back praying for the following reliefs: “a. The Respondents be directed to pay up to this plaint the amount money claim i.e. arrear of salary of Rs. 26,26,253/- encashment of leaves Rs.11,32,250/- and salary of last month of service i.e. Rs. 87,658/-; and with interest of Rs.12% p.a. from the date of retirement to till the date of payment. b. Cost of this suit from Respondents. c. Any other just and equitable order in the interest of justice may kindly be passed.” 4. The proceedings were contested before the Grievance Committee of the University by the Respondent – Management. Ultimately, by an order dated 26.04.2019, the Grievance Committee exercising powers under Section 79 of the Prasad 20_WP_1325_2021.DOC Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 directed that the Respondent – Management shall make payment of the arrears of the salary as per the sixth pay commission to the Petitioner within a period of 180 days from the date of the said order. (official translation) “ORDER :— The D. Y. Patil College of Engineering, Akurdi, Pune, an Institution/College run by the D. Y. Patil Pratishthan, shall pay to the Complainant Prof. Sudhir Shankar Wagh, within a period of two months, the arrears of the amount of difference in salary payable to him in accordance with the Recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission as well as the amount payable towards encashment of the Earned Leave of maximum 180 days standing to his credit.” 5. The said order passed by the Grievance Committee was assailed by the Respondent – Management before this Court in proceedings of Writ Petition No.2982 of 2025 which came to be dismissed by the judgment and order dated 03.03.2025 by the learned Single Judge. The said order was challenged by the Respondent – Management before the Supreme Court in the proceedings of Special Leave Petition (SLP) No.12488 of 2025 which came to be dismissed. We find from the record that although no liberty was granted by the Supreme Court to the Respondent – Management to approach this Court in a review petition, the review petition was later on filed by the Respondent – Management being Review Petition (St.) No.25112 of 2025 praying the review of the said order dated 23.03.2025. This review petition also came to be rejected by order dated 28.07.2026. Thus, the proceedings have now attained finality insofar as the grievance and entitlement of the amounts as granted to the Petitioner by the Grievance Committee are concerned. 6. We find that in compliance of paragraph No.5 of the order dated Prasad 20_WP_1325_2021.DOC 11.08.2025 passed by this Court (surpa) the Respondent – Management has deposited the amounts in this Court. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that although Mr. Patil, learned Counsel for the Respondent – Management has certain reservations in respect of calculation of interest, we are of the opinion that considering the fact that the Petitioner is already in litigation since the year 2014 including to contest the proceedings before the Supreme Court which is now rejected, the Petitioner would become entitled for such reasonable interest. We are accordingly of the opinion that the Petitioner ought to be permitted to withdraw the amounts as deposited by the Respondent – Management in this Court. Let the said amounts be released in favour of the Petitioner by the Registry on presentation of this order. 7. Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of. No costs. 8. At this stage, we are informed by Mr. Patil, that his clients intend to assail the order dated 28.07.2026, passed by the learned Single Judge on the review petition. We do not express any opinion. (DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.) Prasad