Agapito Hillary Fernandes vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 8128 Bom
Judgement Date : 12 October, 2017

Bombay High Court
Agapito Hillary Fernandes vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 12 October, 2017
Bench: A.A. Sayed
k                                  1/3                                  wp 2403.03 os.doc

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

                          WRIT PETITION NO.2403 OF 2003

          Agapito Hilary Fernandes
          having his address at A-10/4
          New Sai Neketan,
          345-Dr. Mascarenhas Road,
          Mazagaon, Mumbai - 400 010.                               ... Petitioner


                  vs.


1         State of Maharashtra
          Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.


2         The Joint Director of Higher Education
          Govt. of Maharashtra Elphinstone
          Technical High School Compound,
          Mahapalika Marg, Mumbai.


3         University of Mumbai
          Fort Campus, Fort,
          Mumbai.


4         Siddharth College of Law
          Anand Bhawan, 3rd Floor,
          Dr. D.N.Road, Mumbai - 400 023.                           ... Respondents


Mr. V.B. Tiwari for the Petitioner.
Mr. Arvind Kothari - Amicus Curiae.
Mr. U.S. Upadhyay, AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2/State.
Mr. Rui Rodrigues for the Respondent No.3/University.



    ::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017                               ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:31:21 :::
 k                                  2/3                                  wp 2403.03 os.doc



                  Coram                   :        A.A. Sayed & M.S. Karnik, JJ.
                  Reserved on             :        04 JULY 2017
                  Pronounced on           :        12 OCTOBER 2017


JUDGMENT (per A.A. Sayed, J.):

1 By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Petitioner essentially seeks pension.

2 The Petitioner is an Advocate. After acquiring degree in Law in 1975, he started practice. He was appointed as part-time Professor of Law in the Respondent No.4 College in the year 1981. He retired on superannuation in the year 2001. The issue in this Petition is essentially whether the Petitioner who is a part-time Professor of Law is entitled to pension at half the rate of pension paid to full-time Professor. This issue is no more res integra.

3 In Bankeri Ambikarai Sharma vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2006 (6) MhLJ 8973 : 2007 (1) ALL MR 373, the Full Bench of this Court while considering the case of part-time Lecturers held that an employee is not entitled to pension de hors the rules. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has not been able to point out any Rules/Government Resolutions which entitle the Petitioner, who is a part-time Professor of Law, to pension.

::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:31:21 :::

          k                                  3/3                                  wp 2403.03 os.doc

         4         In Ramkrishna Sadashiv Jadhav vs. State of Maharashtra

and others, 2006 (5) Mh.L.J. 411 the Division Bench of this Court dealing with the case of a part-time Professor of Law has specifically held that part-time Lecturer is not eligible for pension. The Division Bench referred to the judgment in Ramkrishna Purushottam Dalai vs. The Principal, Ramnarain Ruia College and Ors. decided on 28 October 2002 by Division Bench of this Court wherein it was held that the prerequisite qualification for eligibility of pension and gratuity is that the employee has to be a full-time employee. In the present case it is an admitted position that the Petitioner is part-time Professor of Law. Hence, the Petitioner would not be entitled to pension. The other prayers in the Petition are not pressed in view of the order passed in Writ Petition No.149 of 2000 filed by the Petitioner. The judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Manubhai Pragraji Vashi & Ors., 1996 AIR 1 : 1995 SCC (5) 730, relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has no relevance to the facts of the present case.

5 The Petition shall accordingly stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

                   (M.S. Karnik, J.)                                         (A.A.Sayed, J.)
katkam




             ::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017                               ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:31:21 :::