Savitribai Phule Pune University Officer Wins Pay Protection

Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: 21 September 2026 (Reserved on 11 August 2026)

Case Overview

Parties: Petitioner – Dr. Parveen Parvez Sayyed, Senior Law Officer, Savitribai Phule Pune University (the "University"); Respondents – 1) State of Maharashtra (through Principal Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Dept. & others), 2) Director of Higher Education, Pune, 3) Joint Director of Higher Education, Pune, 4) Savitribai Phule Pune University.
Nature of Proceeding: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging two communications dated 23 June 2021 (issued by a Section Officer, Government of Maharashtra) and 8 June 2022 (issued by the Joint Director, Higher Education) that withdrew the benefit of pay‑scale protection and pensionary consideration for the petitioner’s earlier service as Law Officer (1997‑2010).
Background:
The petitioner holds a Ph.D. in Law and has been in continuous employment with the University for about 29 years – first as Law Officer from 9 June 1997 (appointed by order dated 27 May 1997) and then as Senior Law Officer from 1 August 2010 (appointment order dated 31 July 2010, pay band Rs 15,600‑39,100 with Grade Pay Rs 6,600).
Her initial appointment was made under Section 8(2)(e)(i) of the Maharashtra Universities Act 1994, funded from the University Development Fund, but the terms of service were expressly governed by the Maharashtra Non‑Agricultural Universities and Affiliated Colleges Standard Code (Terms & Conditions of Service of Non‑Teaching Employees) Rules 1984.
The University repeatedly sought recognition of her 13 years of service as Law Officer for pay‑protection and pension purposes. The Joint Director of Higher Education approved the fixation of her pay on 25 January 2016, taking into account the last drawn pay as Law Officer (basic Rs 13,250, total emoluments Rs 24,049) and fixing the Senior Law Officer pay band at Rs 15,600‑39,100/Grade Rs 6,600.
The State Government later issued a communication on 23 June 2021 stating that because the Law Officer post was created from University funds and not from the State, the service could not be counted for pay protection or pension. The same view was reiterated on 8 June 2022, directing the University to cease any further consideration of that service.
Legal Issues:
Whether service on a university‑funded, non‑teaching post governed by the Standard Code qualifies as “government‑regulated” service for the purpose of Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1982, particularly Rules 30, 31 and 33.
Whether the State’s communications withdrawing pay protection constitute an unlawful denial of a vested pension right.
Whether the earlier approval of pay fixation (25 Jan 2016) creates a binding determination that cannot be retrospectively altered.
Observations & Reasoning:
The Court noted that the Standard Code applies to all full‑time non‑teaching employees of non‑agricultural universities, irrespective of the source of funding, and that the petitioner’s service was therefore “government‑regulated”.
Section 8 of the 1994 Act, though allowing the University to create posts from its own funds, does not remove State control; the State retains the power to prescribe service conditions and to audit university accounts.
The Court highlighted precedents (State of Punjab vs Rafiq Masih; Jagdish Prasad Singh vs State of Bihar; Dr Shrikant Sakharam Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra) establishing that recovery of excess salary after a long period is impermissible and that pension rights are a statutory property right.
The Court emphasized that the petitioner’s continuous service from 1997 to 2010 was recognized in the 2016 pay‑fixation order and that the State’s later reversal was arbitrary, contrary to the principle of equality and to the statutory scheme.
The Court applied Rule 31(1) of the MCS (Pension) Rules, stating that the petitioner’s duties and pay were regulated by the Government via the Standard Code, satisfying the condition for qualifying service.
The Court rejected the State’s argument that the Law Officer post was “non‑pensionable” because it was funded by the University, noting that the pension scheme applies to any post whose service is regulated by the Government, regardless of funding source.
Relief Sought by Petitioner:
Quash the letters dated 23 June 2021 and 8 June 2022.
Direct the respondents not to recover any salary paid under the earlier pay‑protection.
Order that the petitioner’s previous service be counted for pension and that her regular pay scale be protected.

Final Outcome

The High Court granted the writs of certiorari and mandamus, quashing the impugned communications dated 23 June 2021 and 8 June 2022.
It directed the State of Maharashtra and the University to continue paying the petitioner’s salary as fixed in the 2016 approval and to recognize her 13 years of service as Law Officer for pensionary benefits.
No recovery of any amount already paid was permitted; the petitioner was awarded the reliefs sought in prayer clauses (a) and (b).
No costs were awarded.

Topics: Pension, Public Employment, Pay Protection