6-WP-12416-2022 (C).doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12416 OF 2022 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 11022 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 12416 OF 2022 Rajaram Mahadeo Patil VERSUS The State of Maharashtra And Ors. ….. Mr. Satyajeet Rajeshirke (Through V.C.) a/w Mr. S.R. Vasekar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. A. I. Patel, Addl. G.P. for the Respondent - State. ….. CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, & NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 6th AUGUST, 2026 P. C. : 1. Heard Mr. Rajeshirke, learned Advocate for the Petitioner / Applicant, and Mr. Patel, learned Additional Government Pleader for the Respondent-State. 2. It is an irony that more than four years have passed, but no Affidavit-in-Reply has been filed, and today time is sought for two more weeks. It is a very sorry state of affairs to say the least. 1 of 5 SAJAKALI LIYAKAT JAMADAR Digitally signed by SAJAKALI LIYAKAT JAMADAR Date: 2026.08.07 10:07:04 +0530 6-WP-12416-2022 (C).doc 3. The Petitioner has been appointed on part-time basis in two colleges belonging to the same educational institution. The first order of appointment is dated 16.07.1993, a copy of which is appended at Exhibit "A" Page-26, whereby the Petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on part-time basis. The second appointment is dated 10.06.1995, a copy of which is appended at Page-59. Both these appointments are in two different colleges belonging to the same institution. 4. The case of the Petitioner is squarely covered by the Government Resolution dated 12.08.1996, and more specifically by Clauses 1 and 2 thereof. Both of us on the Bench understand Marathi and are Maharashtrians. We have perused Clauses 1 and 2 of the said Government Resolution and we find no ambiguity with regard to the applicability of the same to the Petitioner's case. 5. The case of the Petitioner is further fortified by virtue of a communication issued by the concerned educational institution, a copy of which is appended at Exhibit "J", page 118, from which it is prima facie seen that the appointment of the Petitioner to the posts in both colleges belonging to the same educational institution has been approved in the staffing pattern by the competent authority. 2 of 5 6-WP-12416-2022 (C).doc 6. However, so far as the Shalarth Pranali is concerned, only one institution has been approved because the Aadhaar number cannot be updated in the second institution. 7. It is clearly seen from the aforesaid Exhibits appended to the Petition that the Petitioner had been appointed on part-time basis in two different colleges of the same educational institution, namely, Ratnadeep High School and Junior College, Ganganagar, and D.M. High School and Junior College, Kasba Sangav. 8. Mr. Patel, learned Additional Government Pleader, has vehemently opposed the Petition. We do not understand the reason for such vehemence when the aforesaid documentary evidence speaks for itself. According to Mr. Patel, there is no document to show that the Petitioner served in two different colleges, and it is stated that the Petitioner was appointed on part-time basis in the same college. 9. It prima facie appears to us that Mr. Patel is unfortunately incorrect. The educational institution may be the same, but it may have different colleges. Such is the case of the Petitioner before us, and in order to tide over such situations, the State Government has issued the Government Resolution dated 12.08.1996. We find no 3 of 5 6-WP-12416-2022 (C).doc impediment in allowing the Petition in view of our aforesaid observations and findings. 10. Though Mr. Patel has persuaded us to permit him to file an Affidavit-in-Reply, considering the age of the Petition, we reject his request, since we are fully convinced that the Petitioner deserves the relief prayed for in the Petition. 11. The Petition therefore stands allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b), (c1) and (c2) which are reproduced here : “a) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue Writ of mandamus or any other Writ, order or direction and thereby direct the Respondents to grant the benefits of the aforesaid Government Resolutions dated 5.1.1982 and 12.8.1996 by treating the Petitioner as a Full Time Teacher and fixing the pay scale of the Petitioner to the pay scale of Full Time Teacher along with all the consequential service benefits of a Full Time Teacher with effect from 13.6.1994. b) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue Writ of mandamus or any other Writ, order or direction and thereby direct the Respondents to make payment of difference in salary and all the allowances including Dearness Allowance, House Rent Allowance, local supplementary allowance along with bonus applicable for the post of Full Time Assistant Teacher and on account of drawing the salary as a Part Time Teacher from two part time posts from 13.6.1994. c1) this Hon Court may be pleased to direct Respondent to make payment of difference in arrears of salary between Full time teacher post and one part time teacher post from 1/05/2019 to 31/05/2024. c2) this Hon Court May be pleased to direct Respondent no 5 to 7 to submit Pension proposal of the Petitioner and further direct Respondent no 1 to 4 to sanction and disburse the Pension of the Petitioner along with arrears of Pension.” 4 of 5 6-WP-12416-2022 (C).doc 12. The Petitioner has already retired in the year 2024. We direct that the pension proposal of the Petitioner shall be sent by the educational institution where the Petitioner was working and from which the Petitioner superannuated to Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a server copy of this order. 13. A copy shall be served upon the concerned educational institution by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner. 14. We direct Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to process the pension proposal of the Petitioner as a full-time teacher and for all consequential benefits and accordingly issue appropriate sanction and approval therefor within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the said proposal from Respondent No. 5 – the Management of the educational institution. 15. The Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms. 16. In view of the disposal of the Writ Petition, the Interim Application does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. [NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.] [MILIND N. JADHAV, J.] Sajakali 5 of 5