Bombay High Court
Gorakshanath Bhaga Hodgar vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 5 April, 2021
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala, Shrikant Dattatray Kulkarni
1
W.P.5770-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 5770 OF 2021
Gorakshanath s/o Bhaga Hodgar ..Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Finance Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai and ors. ..Respondents
Mr H.P. Jadhav, Advocate h/f Mr G.B. Kadlag, Advocate for petitioner
Mr S.B. Yawalkar, Addl.G.P. for respondent-State
CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA AND
SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.
DATE : 5th April 2021
PER COURT :
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr Jadhav holding for Mr Kadlag for
petitioner.
2. Learned Advocate for petitioner submits that the petitioner is
appointed on 25.8.2005 i.e. prior to 1.11.2005. As such, is governed by the
old pension scheme and not D.C.P. Scheme. Learned Advocate relies on
the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 8387 of 2013
with connected petitions decided under judgment and order dated 30.4.2019.
3. We have heard learned A.G.P. also.
4. The Full Bench of this Court in the above judgment in paragraph 34
and 37 observed thus :
"34. It is true that the service put in by an employee of a
recognized private school during the time when such school was
not receiving grant, would also count towards the qualifying service
for pension when such employee retires from a school which
receives grant. This was also the context of G.R. dated 8.4.2018
W.P.5770-2021
noted earlier. This, however, would not mean that the employee
appointed in a school can claim to be governed by the pension
scheme til the school starts receiving 100% grant.
37. Under these circumstances, we answer the Reference as
under:-
Question No.1 :
In the context of the right of an employee of private school
or college of education to receive pensionary benefits and the
corresponding liability of the Government to pay the same, only
those schools and colleges of education which are receiving 100%
grant-in-aid can be termed as aided institutions.
Question No.2 :
The employees who were appointed prior to 1.11.2005 in
aided recognized primary, secondary schools as well as colleges
of education which were receiving less than 100% grant-in-aid as
on 1.11.2005 would be governed by the DCP Scheme.
Question No.3 :
Similar will be the situation of the employees who were
appointed prior to 1.11.2005 in aided primary, secondary and
higher secondary schools as well as the colleges of education
which were receiving less than 100% grant-in-aid as on 1.11.2005
but which became 100% aided before 29.11.2010 would also be
governed by the DCP scheme."
5. The petitioner was appointed on 25.8.2005. The same was not 100%
grant-in-aid. He was on grant-in-aid of 60% in September 2006 and the
petitioner was appointed on 100% grant-in-aid in March 2008. Question no.3
decided above by the Full Bench is applicable in the present case. The
petitioner would be governed by the D.C.P. Scheme.
W.P.5770-2021
6. In light of that, no relief can be granted.
7. Writ Petition disposed of. No costs.
( SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.) ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)
vvr
