3-WP-8472-2022.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8472 OF 2022 Dr. Milind Jagannath Joshi ...Petitioner. Versus Shivaji University Thr. Its Registrarand Another ...Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 15234 OF 2022 Capt. Atindra Jaswant Katkar ...Petitioner. Versus Shivaji University And Another ...Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 15279 OF 2022 Smt. Swati Sanjay Kharade ...Petitioner. Versus Shivaji University Vidya Nagar Thr Its Registrar Kolhapur And Another ...Respondents. —————— Mr. Narendra V. Bandiwadekar, Senior Advocate (Through V. C.) a/w Sagar Ashok Mane, Rushikesh Jagdale & Neha Farakate for the Petitioner. Mr. Yuvraj Narvankar a/w Rahul Patil for Respondent No. 1. Mr. M. V. Mali, AGP for the Respondent-State in WP/8472/2022. Ms. T. J. Kapre, AGP for the Respondent-State in WP/15279/2022. Mr. S. B. Kalel, AGP for the Respondent-State in WP/15234/2022. —————— Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh & Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ. Date : August 17, 2026. P. C. : Harish 1 of 5 HARISH VITHAL CHAUDHARI Digitally signed by HARISH VITHAL CHAUDHARI Date: 2026.08.17 18:45:17 +0530 3-WP-8472-2022.doc 1. By this group of petitions, the challenge by the petitioners is to the pension scheme of 2015 named as "Shivaji University Pension Scheme, 2015" and for seeking a declaration that the pension scheme of 2015 did not apply to the petitioners, who will continue to be governed by the provisions of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. 2. The petitioners are working as Programmer in the Computer Section, Assistant Registrar (Security), and Senior System Analyst. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 8472 of 2022 was appointed on 05.02.1989; the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 15234 of 2022 was appointed on 19.07.2001; and the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 15297 of 2022 was appointed on 31.12.1988. After their retirement in 2020/2022/2023, these petitions came to be iled challenging the pension scheme of the year 2015. 3. The contention of Mr. Bandiwadekar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners, is that by reason of the Shivaji University Pension Scheme, 2015, the salary for the purpose of considering the grant of pension was frozen to 01.04.2015, and without any beneits of commutation of pension. Similarly the encashment of leave was also frozen to the date of 01.04.2015. He would contend that though the consent letter was signed by the petitioners, there was no option given to them and the petitioners, in order to save their employment, signed Harish 2 of 5 3-WP-8472-2022.doc the consent letters. He submits that the consent letters merely asked for consent to the pension scheme and did not give any option of electing the old pension scheme or the Shivaji University Pension Scheme of 2015. He further submits that immediately after the consent letters were given, representations were made with the Shivaji University; however, the same went un-responded, and therefore, the petitions came to be iled. 4. Upon a query as to the dates of retirement, Mr. Bandiwadekar, learned Senior Advocate submits that the present petitions were iled after the petitioners retired from service and are drawing pension as per the pension scheme of 2015. Insofar as the issue of delay is concerned, as the pension scheme was implemented in the year 2015, the contention of Mr. Bandiwadekar is that representations were made immediately thereafter, and the petitions came to be iled after retirement, which cannot be said to sufer from any delay. 5. Mr. Narvankar, learned counsel appearing for the University, submitted that having accepted the pension scheme of 2015, it is now too late in the day to withdraw the consent. He would further submit that in an identical case of, Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner vs. State of Rajasthan and others (Civil Appeal No. 7160 of 2013), the Hon’ble Apex Court did not permit the employees to retract from the pension scheme after giving their option. Mr. Narvankar would further Harish 3 of 5 3-WP-8472-2022.doc point out that these are self-funded posts of the University and, therefore, it is for the University to decide the applicable pension scheme. 6. We have considered the submissions and perused the records. 7. It is undisputed that the pension scheme was loated in the year 2015 and the consent letter speciically asks for the consent of the employees to opt for the pension scheme of 2015 or not. It is not correct to submit that the consent letter did not give any option, as it speciically provides for an option of not accepting the pension scheme of 2015. The pension scheme of 2015 speciically provides that once the pension scheme is opted, there is no option of withdrawing from the said pension scheme. 8. Being aware of all the terms and conditions of the pension scheme of 2015, the petitioners gave their consent for the scheme, continued with their services from 2015 till their retirement in 2020/2022/2023, and having accepted the pension after retirement, have now sought to challenge the applicability of the scheme. We are not inclined to entertain the challenge after the consent had been given knowingly by the petitioners, who are qualiied persons. The petitioners, having opted for the pension scheme of 2015, are now estopped from claiming that the scheme is not beneicial to them. The consent letter clearly gives an option to accept or not to accept the Harish 4 of 5 3-WP-8472-2022.doc scheme, and having exercised the option of scheme of 2015 the petitioners cannot be permitted to now elect otherwise. 9. The decision in the case of Rajasthan Agricultural University (supra) rightly notes that each employer university would have its own scheme with regard to payment of retirement beneits to its employees. Similar would be the case here. The University had implemented the pension scheme of 2015, which was accepted by the petitioners and now it is not permissible for the petitioners to retract their consent after retirement and seek beneit under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules. 10. In light of the above, the petitions fail and stand dismissed. [Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.] Harish 5 of 5