Disposed¶25

Sweta Sunil Vasgade v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Jan 2026WP/155/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Old Pension Scheme; pre-01-11-2005 appointees; fully aided school; Education Officer; no prior representation to competent authority; leave to withdraw with liberty to file representation; 4-week filing window and 12-week decision timeline; consideration of this Court's earlier judgments; writ petitions disposed of; no costs; Bombay High Court Kolhapur Circuit Bench; 2026.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to withdraw the petitions and file an appropriate representation to the competent authority; if the representation is filed within 4 weeks, the authority is to decide on its own merits within 12 weeks thereafter, considering this Court's judgments; no costs. ¶25

Sweta Sunil Vasgade vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, whose appointments were prior to 1 November 2005 in a fully aided school and whose services are claimed to be governed by the Old Pension Scheme, should have the Old Pension Scheme applied to them by the Education Officer. +1 more

¶17

Ratio / Principle

The Court granted leave to withdraw the petitions with liberty to file an appropriate representation to the competent authority, and directed that if the representation is filed within 4 weeks, the concerned authority shall take an appropriate decision on its own merits within 12 weeks thereafter, taking into consideration the various judgments passed by this Court on the point.

¶21

Key takeaways

Both Writ Petitions were disposed of, with no costs.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Kolhapur Circuit Bench), Civil Appellate Jurisdiction — Writ Petition No. 155 of 2026 (Uday S. Jagtap v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.) along with Writ Petition No. 157 of 2026 (Dewadas S/o Sahebrao Dhok v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.); Coram: R.G. Avachat and Ajit B. Kadethankar, JJ.; decided 21 January 2026. Petitioners, whose services are stated to be governed by the Old Pension Scheme as their appointments were prior to 1 November 2005 in a fully aided school, prayed for a direction to the Education Officer to apply the Old Pension Scheme, relying on what counsel described as a catena of judgments of this Court. The learned AGP objected that the petitioners had made no representation to the competent authority and had directly approached the Court. Counsel thereupon sought leave to withdraw the petitions with liberty to file an appropriate representation. The Court disposed of both Writ Petitions (no costs), directing that if a representation is filed within 4 weeks, the concerned authority shall take an appropriate decision on its own merits within 12 weeks thereafter, taking into consideration the various judgments passed by this Court on the subject. The entitlement question itself was left undecided by this Court.

¶1

16&17-155-2026-CWP-C=.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 155 OF 2026

¶4

Digitallysigned by Sweta Sunil Vasgade … Petitioner UDAY UDAY SHIVAJI SHIVAJI JAGTAP Versus JAGTAP Date:2026.01.2118:02:47 The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents +0530

¶5

ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 157 OF 2026

¶6

Dewadas S/o Sahebrao Dhok … Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents

¶7

Mr. Arvind G. Ambetkar a/w Surekha H. Kamble for the Petitioners. Mr. V.M. Mali, AGP for the Respondent - State.

¶8

CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT AND AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, JJ.

¶9

DATE : 21^st JANUARY, 2026.

¶10

P. C. :

¶11

1. Mr. Ambetkar, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit

¶12

that petitioners’ services are governed by the Old Pension Scheme as the petitioners’ appointments were prior to 1^st November 2005 and in a

¶13

school, that was fully aided school. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that in the catena of judgments, this Court has held

¶14

1 of 3

¶15

Uday S. Jagtap

¶16

16&17-155-2026-CWP-C=.doc

¶17

that the persons in the similar circumstances are covered by the Old Pension Scheme. He would pray to direct the Education Officer to apply the Old Pension Scheme to the petitioners.

¶18

2. Mr. Mali, learned AGP would submit that the petitioners have not made any such representation to the competent authority so as to take appropriate decision on such prayer. Learned AGP submits that in such circumstances, the petitioners have directly approached this Hon’ble Court and that directions may not be issued in the absence of any representation by the petitioners.

¶19

3. Mr. Ambetkar, learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, seeks

¶20

leave to withdraw the petitions with liberty to file appropriate representation to the competent authority.

¶21

4. If the representation is so filed within a period of 4 weeks from today, the concerned authority shall take appropriate decision on its own merits within a period of 12 weeks thereafter. The concerned authority shall take into consideration various judgments passed by this court in this respect.

¶22

2 of 3

¶23

Uday S. Jagtap

¶24

16&17-155-2026-CWP-C=.doc

¶25

5. The Writ Petitions are disposed of. No costs.

¶26

[AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. ]

¶27

[ R.G. AVACHAT, J. ]

¶28

3 of 3

¶29

Uday S. Jagtap

Sweta Sunil Vasgade v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sweta Sunil Vasgade v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shubham Sanjay Bhosale vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary School Education and Sports Dept. and Ors.

Mahesh Raosaheb Jagtap vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary and Anr.

Maharashtra Rajya Sevanivrutta Shikshak Shikshaketta Adhikari Sanghtana Throu. President vs the State of Maharashtra Throu. Its Principal Sec. School Education and Sports Dept and Ors.

Anirudha Shivaram Kamble vs State of Maharashtra Thr Department of Rural Development

Kiran S/O Appasaheb Shete vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Poraskumar Navalkishor Chaudhary vs Union of India Thr Secretary and Others