Wednesday, 22, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Agapito Hillary Fernandes vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 8128 Bom

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.

          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





 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IDRC

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter