Bombay High Court
Ku. Meena D/O Damodar Dudhane vs Deputy Director Of Education ... on 14 August, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
1408WP1291.13-Judgment 1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 1291 OF 2013
PETITIONER :- Ku. Meena D/o Damodar Dudhane, (Now
Smt. Meena Wife of Shri Raju Kothe), Aged
about 47 years, Occupation : Service, R/o
153, Sandekar Layout, Alankar Nagar,
Manewada Besa Road, Nagpur-440 034.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur
Division, Near Old Moris College, Sitabuldi,
Nagpur.
2) Principal, Vandemataram Vidyalaya and
Junior College (Science), Avadhut Nagar,
Manewada Ring Road, Nagpur.
3) Superintendent Pay Unit, Ravinagar,
Nagpur.
4) Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla
Parishad, Nagpur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.A.Shelat, counsel for the petitioner.
Ms Tajwar Khan, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the respondent Nos.1, 3 & 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
M. G. GIRATKAR
, JJ.
DATED : 14.08.2017
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per : Smt.Vasanti A Naik, J.)
By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a declaration that
the petitioner would be governed by the Maharashtra Civil Services
1408WP1291.13-Judgment 2/3
(Pension) Rules as the petitioner is appointed before the cut-off date
and the college in which the petitioner was appointed was also
receiving 100% grant-in-aid in the year 2004-2005. It is stated that the
new Defined Contributory Pension Scheme would not be applicable to
the petitioner.
Ms Khan, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for
the respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4, has denied the claim of the petitioner by
referring to the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent No.1.
It is stated that the Deputy Director of Education had conducted a
hearing in the matter of grant of approval to the services of the
petitioner as a junior college lecturer and after hearing the management
of the concerned college and the petitioner, the Deputy Director of
Education had, by the order dated 30/01/2014 held that the petitioner
was not entitled to approval before 30/06/2007 as the petitioner was
not working on the post which had the workload of a full time teacher
till then. It is stated that from 01/08/1996 to 30/06/2017 the petitioner
was working on a post which did not have the workload of a teacher
working on a full time post. It is stated that since the order dated
30/01/2014 is not challenged by the petitioner and has attained
finality, the petitioner would not be entitled to seek a declaration that
the services of the petitioner would be governed by the Maharashtra
1408WP1291.13-Judgment 3/3
Civil Services (Pension) Rules and the new Defined Contributory
Pension Scheme would not be applicable to the petitioner.
We are inclined to accept the submission made on behalf
of the respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4. The petitioner claims to have been
appointed in the year 1996 in a clear vacancy but we find that the
Deputy Director of Education has decided the case of the petitioner and
after hearing the management and the petitioner, has passed an order
on 30/01/2014 that the petitioner would not be entitled to approval till
30/06/2007 as the petitioner was appointed on a post which did not
have the full workload till 30/06/2007. In the circumstances of the
case, unless the order dated 30/01/2014 is set aside, the petitioner
would not be entitled to seek a declaration that the petitioner would be
governed by the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules.
In view of the aforesaid, we dispose of the writ petition
with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged. The petitioner is
however free to challenge the order dated 30/01/2014, if so advised.
Order accordingly.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
