Bombay High Court
Sunil Jivan Kamdi And Another vs State Of Maharashtra, Through Its ... on 4 July, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
0407WP2310&4860.11-Judgment 1/9
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 2310 OF 2011
PETITIONERS :- 1] Sau.Ujjawala Jayant Wankhede, Aged
about : 40 years, Occupation : Service, R/o.
Guru Nagar, Bhadrawati, District
Chandrapur.
2] Kishor Rushi Dhok, Aged about : 39 years,
Occupation : Service, R/o. Gaddamwar
Layout, Behind Survey Garage, Bhadrawati
District Chandrapur.
3] Ramesh Tukaram Chawhan, Aged about : 39
years, occupation : Service, R/o. Manjusha
Layout, Nagaji Maharaj Mandir, Bhadrawati,
District Chandrapur.
4] Sau.Prema Sunil Potdukhe, Aged about : 36
years, Occupation : Service, R/o Bhangaram
Ward, Near Ambedkar Statue, Bhadrawati,
District Chandrapur.
5] Devendra Mahadeorao Pusdekar, Aged about
: 42 years, Occupation : Service, R/o.
Gaddamwar Layout, Behind Survey Garage,
Bhadrawati, District Chandrapur.
6] Dyanesh Dayaram Hatwar, Aged about : 37
years, Occupation : Service, R/o.C/o.
B.M.Upare, Zade Plots, Bhadrawati, District
Chandrapur.
7] Bhishmacharya Ekanath Borkute, Aged about
: 38 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. C/o.
B.H. Raut, Santaji Nagar, Bhadrawati,
District Chandrapur.
8] Vijay Bhauraoji Gaikwad, Aged about : 39
years, Occupation : Service, R/o.C/o.
P.G.Mahakarkar, Zade Plots, Bhadrawati,
::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2017 00:45:04 :::
0407WP2310&4860.11-Judgment 2/9
District Chandrapur.
9] Ku.Sangita Jayant Jakkulwar, Aged about :
39 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Vivek
Nagar, Mul Road, District Chandrapur.
10] Rakesh Rambhau Awari, Aged about : 34
years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Arun
Gundawar Plot, Vinjasan Road, Bhadrawati,
District Chandrapur.
11] Madhao Balaji Kendre, Aged about : 34
years, Occupation : Service, R/o. C/o.
Ekanath Yergude Ghunt Kala Ward, Zade
Plots, Bhadrawati, District Chandrapur.
12] Sanghpal Tukaram Julame, Aged about : 39
years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Gopalpuri,
Balaji Ward, No.2 Chandrapur.
13] Kailash Santosh Tabhane, Aged about : 36
years, Occupation : Service, R/o.C/o. Shri
Shamrao Kutemte, Gaddamwar Society,
Bhadrawati, District Chandrapur.
14] Harihar Mathuji Mohorkar, Aged about : 37
years, Occupation : Service, R/o. C/o.
Namdeo Pote, Surya Mandir Ward,
Bhadrawati, District Chandrapur.
15] Sanjay Keshao Chawhan, Aged about : 35
years, Occupation : Service, R/o.C/o.
Ekanath Yergude, Ghunt Kala Ward, Zade
Plots, Bhadrawati, District Chandrapur.
16] Rajendra Uttamrao Sable, Aged about : 44
years, Occupation : Service, R/o.C/o.
P.N.Banpurkar, Jawale Plots, Bhadrawati,
District Chandrapur.
17] Manoj Gajanan Swan, Aged about : 35 years,
Occupation : Service, R/o. Bhojward,
Bhadrawati, District Chandrapur.
::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2017 00:45:04 :::
0407WP2310&4860.11-Judgment 3/9
18] Aprna Baburap Bagde, Aged about : 34
years, Occupation : Service, R/o.Bagdewadi,
Bhadrawati, District Chandrapur.
19] Kamalakar Bhauraoji Hawaikar, Aged about :
40 years, Occupation : Service, R/o Netaji
Ward, Hinganghat.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1] State of Maharashtra through its Secretary,
Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai
- 400 032.
2] State of Maharashtra through its Secretary,
School Education and Sports Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.
3] Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur
Division, Nagpur.
4] The Superintendent, Pay and Provident
Fund Unit, (Secondary), Zilla Parishad,
Chandrapur.
5] Bhadrawati Shikshan Sanstha, Bhadrawati,
Dist : Chandrapur.
6] Yashwantrao Shinde Junior College
Chichordi, Taluka : Bhadrawati, District :
Chandrapur, through its Head Master /
Principal.
7] Yashwant Kanishtya Mahavidyalaya,
Through its Head Master / Principal Chora,
Taluka : Bhadrawati, District : Chandrapur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.A.D.Mohagaonkar, counsel for the petitioners.
Mr.I.J.Damle, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 to 4.
None for the respondent Nos.5 to 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2017 00:45:04 :::
0407WP2310&4860.11-Judgment 4/9
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 4860 OF 2011
PETITIONERS :- 1] Sunil Jivan Kamdi, Aged about : 39 years,
Occupation : Service,
2] Shri Jalendra Nilkanth Sorte, Aged about :
35 years, Occupation : Service,
Both R/o. C/o. Shankarrao Mallewar Junior
College, Bodli, Tahsil and District :
Gadchiroli.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1] State of Maharashtra through its Secretary,
Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai
- 400 032.
2] State of Maharashtra through its Secretary,
School Education and Sports Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.
3] Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur
Division, Nagpur.
4] Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla
Parishad, Gadchrilo.
5] The Superintendent, Pay and Provident
Fund Unit, Secondary, Zilla Parishad,
Chandrapur.
6] Semana Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
Through its Secretary, Gadchiroli.
7] Shankarrao Mallewar Higher Secondary
School, through its Principal, Bodli, Dist. :
Gadchiroli.
::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2017 00:45:04 :::
0407WP2310&4860.11-Judgment 5/9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.A.D.Mohagaonkar, counsel for the petitioners.
Mr.I.J.Damle, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 to 5.
None for the respondent Nos.6 and 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
ARUN D. UPADHYE
, JJ.
DATED : 04.07.2017
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A Naik, J.)
Since the issue involved in these petitions is identical and
similar prayers are made therein, they are heard together and are
decided by this common judgment.
2. By this writ petition, the petitioners seek a declaration that
their services would be governed by the Maharashtra Civil Services
(Pension) Rules, 1982 and the new Defined Contributory Pension
Scheme would not be applicable to them.
3. According to the petitioners, the petitioners were appointed
in the respective schools on the posts of assistant teachers from the year
1998 to 2005. Approval was granted to the appointment of the
petitioners on the posts of assistant teachers. As per the government
resolution dated 31/10/2005, the old pension scheme would not apply
0407WP2310&4860.11-Judgment 6/9
to the teachers that were appointed on or after 01/11/2005 and the
new Defined Contributory Pension Scheme would apply to them. It is
the case of the petitioners, that since the petitioners were appointed on
the posts of assistant teachers before the cut-off date on 01/11/2005
and their services were approved by the education authorities, the
benefit of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 could
not have been denied to them merely because the posts or the sections
in which they were appointed were not brought on 100% grant-in-aid
before 01/11/2005. According to the petitioners, the clarificatory
government resolution dated 29/11/2010 that provides that only the
teachers working on the posts or schools that were brought on 100%
grant-in-aid before 01/11/2005 would be entitled to the benefit of the
Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 would not apply to
them. It is submitted that though the posts on which the petitioners
were appointed were brought on grant-in-aid, the respondents have
denied the benefit of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules,
1982 to the petitioners only because the posts on which they were
teaching were not brought on 100% grant-in-aid before the cut-off date.
It is submitted that the respondents had started deducting the provident
fund contribution before the government resolution dated 31/10/2005
was issued. In the aforesaid background, the petitioners have sought a
declaration that the petitioners would be entitled to the benefit of the
0407WP2310&4860.11-Judgment 7/9
provisions of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 and
the new Defined Contributory Pension Scheme would not apply to
them.
4. Shri Damle, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4, has supported the action on
the part of the said respondents. It is submitted that the petitioners
were appointed in the schools run on no grant/partial grant basis
before the cut-off date on 01/11/2005. It is submitted that the schools/
sections in which the petitioners were appointed were brought on 100%
grant-in-aid only after 01/11/2005. It is submitted that since the
provisions of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982
would apply only to the teachers that were appointed on the posts or
schools that were brought on 100% grant-in-aid before 01/11/2005, the
petitioners would not be entitled to the benefit of the provisions of the
Rules of 1982, as admittedly the posts on which the petitioners were
appointed were not receiving 100% grant-in-aid before 01/11/2005. It
is submitted that on a combined reading of the government resolutions
dated 31/10/2005 and 29/11/2010, it is apparent that the petitioners
would not be entitled to the relief. It is submitted that merely because
the petitioners had paid the subscription towards provident fund as per
the old pension scheme and the said amount was wrongfully deducted
0407WP2310&4860.11-Judgment 8/9
from their salaries, the petitioners cannot claim the benefit in view of
the government resolutions dated 31/10/2005 and 29/11/2010 as they
were not appointed on the posts that were brought on 100% grant-in-
aid before 01/11/2005.
5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a
perusal of the government resolutions, it appears that the relief sought
by the petitioners cannot be granted. Though the petitioners were
admittedly appointed before the cut-off date, i.e. 01/11/2005, the posts
on which the petitioners were appointed were not brought on 100%
grant-in-aid before the cut-off date. The schools/sections in which the
petitioners were appointed were admittedly brought on 100% grant-in-
aid only after 01/11/2005. The old pension scheme is applicable only
to the employees that are appointed in the schools that are brought on
100% grant-in-aid before 01/11/2005. Since the schools in which the
petitioners were appointed were not brought on 100% grant-in-aid
before the cut-off date, the petitioners would be not entitled to the
benefit of the provisions of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension)
Rules, 1982. The services of the petitioners would be governed by the
new Defined Contributory Pension Scheme as per the government
resolution dated 31/10/2005. Merely because some deductions were
wrongfully made from the salary of the petitioners, towards provident
0407WP2310&4860.11-Judgment 9/9
fund, the petitioners cannot claim that the old pension scheme should
be made applicable to them. Since the case of the petitioners does not
fit in the government resolutions that are referred to herein above, the
petitions are liable to be dismissed.
Hence, we dismiss the writ petitions with no order as to
costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
