The ruling emphasizes public colleges’ accountability to uphold the recommendations of the pay commissions and protect the employees’ financial well-being.

Case Title: Mrs. Prachi P. Kulkarni Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case No: WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 3980 OF 2022

Decided on: 9th May , 2024


Facts of the case

The petitioners are former staff members of the Women’s University of Shreemati Nathibai Damodar Thackersey (SNDT). They claimed in their writ petitions that they were not receiving their deadness allowance (DA) and retirement benefits in accordance with the recommendations made by the 7th Pay Commission. The petitioners claimed that they were suffering severe financial difficulty since they were only receiving benefits in accordance with the 6th Pay Commission, even though the 7th Pay Commission was applicable.


1.If the petitioners can benefit from the proposals made by the 7th Pay Commission?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to receive their retirement benefits and DA in accordance with the 7th Pay Commission from the State of Maharashtra and SNDT Women’s University.

 Legal Provisions 

The India’s Constitution: Article 14: Right to Equality .Article 21: Right to Life and Personal Liberty .Maharashtra Public institutions Act 2016: Establishes the legal framework and provides funding for Maharashtra’s public institutions.

Appellant contentions 

According to the petitioners, the University is required by law and morality to pay their DA and pensions in accordance with the 7th Pay Commission. They contend that they are suffering undue hardship as a result of the University’s delay in putting the 7th Pay Commission’s recommendations into effect, particularly since many of them are elderly or deceased. They cite earlier court rulings and agreement clauses requiring the University to offer pension benefits.

Respondent’s contentions

The University admits that the 7th Pay Commission is applicable, but it cites budgetary limitations and the requirement to create a corpus fund before disbursing the updated benefits: – Because of these budgetary limitations, the university suggested delaying complete adoption until June 2025.

Court Analysis and Judgement 

The University was ordered by the court to begin disbursing the petitioners’ DA and pensions in accordance with the 7th Pay Commission on July 1, 2024. The court mandated that the arrears be paid in three months’ worth of installments: 33% in the first three months, 33% in the next three months, and the remaining 34% in the following three months. The full amount of the outstanding arrears becomes due in six months if the first installment is not paid within three months. In order to assure compliance, the court published a regulation, and in the event of a default, the petitioners were permitted to request additional orders. The ruling emphasizes public colleges’ accountability to uphold the recommendations of the pay commissions and protect the employees’ financial well-being. It emphasizes the judiciary’s responsibility for making sure retired workers receive their rightful benefits on schedule. The ruling emphasizes the necessity for institutions to have financial plans for such commitments and sets a precedent for instances that are comparable to it. This instance highlights more general problems with financial planning and administrative delays in public institutions, especially when it comes to employee perks and following national pay commission recommendations.The Supreme Court in the Mahatama Gandhi Mission and Anr. V. Bhartiya Kamgar Sena and Ors. Case has directed the Respondent-University to commence payment of pensionary benefits, including dearness allowance, to the Petitioners as per the 7th pay commission from 1 July 2024 onwards. The court has set a time limit for payment, stating that an absolute refusal to consider payment until June 2025 is unacceptable. The court has also directed installments for arrears, with the first installment of 33% arrears due within three months. The court has issued a rule to ensure compliance and allows the Petitioners to take out interim applications for necessary orders.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Analysis Written by – K.Immey Grace


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *