In a significant judgment dated 25 July 2025, the Bombay High Court ruled in favor of Dr. Pradnya Gopalrao Giradkar, a former Zoology lecturer at a college run by Somaiya Trust, reversing her 2007 dismissal and ordering her notional reinstatement with full retirement benefits.
Dr. Giradkar had served as a lecturer since 1992 and was confirmed in her post in 1994. Over time, she raised repeated concerns about delays in promotions, monetary entitlements, and discriminatory treatment, especially following the appointment of a new principal in 2002.
Her grievances were met with what the court later determined to be retaliatory action: she was dismissed from service in December 2007 after being charged with “moral turpitude” for allegedly making false accusations against the principal.
Read also:- Delhi High Court Grants Furlough to Convict Despite Past Parole Violation
In 2014, the Mumbai University and College Tribunal found the dismissal unjust and disproportionate. The tribunal:
“Quashed the dismissal dated 7.12.2007 and directed reinstatement of the Appellant with continuity of service and revised salary, allowing her to apply for Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS).”
However, despite this clear order, the college did not reinstate Dr. Giradkar, prompting her to lose out on future service opportunities and retirement planning.
Read also:- Supreme Court: Retrospective Enhanced Punishment Under POCSO Violates Article 20(1)
Justice Milind N. Jadhav noted the college’s failure to implement the Tribunal's directions:
“Had the petitioners reinstated her, she would have joined service and submitted her VRS resignation. She was precluded from doing so.”
The court strongly criticized the invocation of “moral turpitude” for what it saw as legitimate grievances by a senior academic:
“Filing complaints for delay in benefits or research support cannot be equated with criminal or immoral behavior warranting dismissal.”
The judge emphasized that the College’s retaliatory action and lack of cooperation with research and promotions severely impacted Dr. Giradkar’s academic progress.
Read also:- Court Approval Must for Changing Father's Name in Birth Certificate: Kerala HC
Given that Dr. Giradkar had crossed the superannuation age of 63 by May 2022, the Court:
- Upheld the Tribunal’s order of reinstatement.
- Directed the college to notionally reinstate her from the date of the order until her retirement.
- Ordered the State Government to pay her full retirement benefits and back wages with 7% interest, as her position was on a sanctioned post in a fully aided institution.
“Respondent No.1 cannot be allowed to suffer the ignominy of the system any further,” the Court remarked, noting the denial of justice due to bureaucratic delay.
Additionally, the court quashed the requirement for Dr. Giradkar to submit a VRS application since she was never reinstated, making it practically impossible to comply with that part of the Tribunal’s order.
Case Title: The Vice President, Somaiya Trust and Anr. vs. Dr. Pradnya d/o Gopalrao Giradkar and Ors.
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 5424 of 2014