Bombay High Court
Sheetal Shashikant Raote vs Brihanmumbai Municipal ... on 23 December, 2021
Bench: R.D. Dhanuka, R. N. Laddha
ppn 1 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1260 OF 2018
Urmila Premnarayan Mishra )
C/36, Vindavan Kunj-1 )
Don Bosco Road, )
Near Rakha Dada Mandir, )
Naigaon - 401 208. Dist.Palghar ) ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation )
Mahapalika Marg, Near Chhatrapati )
Shivaji Terminus, Mumbai 400 001. )
(Through the Commissioner) )
2. The Ward Officer, )
R South Ward, Municipal Corporation, )
776, Pragati Vidhalay )
Bhatevadi )
Dadar (West), Mumbai 400 028. )
3. Shukla Education Trust's )
Gandhi Vidya Mandir High School )
Gandhi Nagar, Lalji Pada, )
Link Road, Kandivali (West), )
Mumbai 400 067. )
Through its Chairman/Secretary )
4. The Head Master, )
Gandhi Vidya Mandir High School )
Gandhi Nagar, Lalji Pada, )
Link Road, Kandivali (West), )
Mumbai 400 067. ) ... Respondents
WITH
::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2021 05:32:10 :::
ppn 2 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
WRIT PETITION NO. 635 OF 2020
Smita Sudhir Janvekar )
having her permanent residence at )
Flat No.2402, Wing I, Lodha Amara, )
Kolshet Road, Clariant Compound, )
Thane (West), Mumbai 400607. ) ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation )
Mahapalika Marg, Near Chhatrapati )
Shivaji Terminus, Mumbai 400 001. )
(Through the Commissioner) )
2. The Ward Officer, )
F North Ward, Municipal Corporation, )
th
Triveni Sangam, 4 Floor, BMC School Bldg.)
Mahadev Palav Marg, )
Curry Road (East), Mumbai 400 012. )
3. The Head Master, )
Indian Education Society, )
Mulund (East), Mumbai 400 081. ) ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1942 OF 2019
1. Ansari Razia )
Daughter of Ansari Sayeedur Rehman, )
Date of Birth : 9.5.1958 age 60 yrs, 10 mths.)
worked as : Head Teacher (Group 'A' post) )
(initial date of appointment in service:1.9.1981)
as Assistant Teacher and date of retirement )
31.5.2016 as Head Teacher ) from )
Anjuman Islam Ahmed Sailor (Private Primary
Aided School granted by BMC since 2009 )
-100%), 125, Dimtimkar Road, Nagpada, )
Mumbai 400 008, and residing at : Room )
No.22, Jumma Sharif Bldg., 2nd Peerkhan )
Street, Nagpada, Mumbai 400 008, )
State of Maharashtra )
::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2021 05:32:10 :::
ppn 3 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
2. Sayed Ishrat Sultana )
Wife of Sayed Mubarak Hussain, )
Date of birth 10.5.1958, age 60 yrs 10 mths)
worked as : Assistant Teacher (Group 'B' post)
(initial date of appointment in service:31.7.1987)
as Assistant Teacher and date of retirement )
31.5.2016 as Assistant Teacher ) from )
Anjuman Islam Ahmed Sailor (Private Primary
Aided School granted by BMC since 2009 )
-100%), 125, Dimtimkar Road, Nagpada, )
Mumbai 400 008, and residing at : Room )
No.19, 3rd Aminabai Bldg., 94, B.A. Virani )
Marg, Huzaria Street, Nagpada, )
Mumbai 400 008, State of Maharashtra ) ... Petitioners
Versus
1. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai )
Through Municipal Commissioner, )
Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai )
Mahapalika Marg, Mumbai - 400 001. )
2. Municipal Commissioner )
Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai, )
Education Department, Mahapalika Marg, )
Mumbai 400 001. )
3. Education Officer, )
Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai, )
Bhantewadi, Pragati Vidyalaya, )
Dadar (West), Mumbai 400 028. )
4. State of Maharashtra )
Through AGP, Education Department )
Mantralaya Mumbai 400 021. )
5. The Head Master, )
Anjuman-I-Islam's Ahmed Sailor Primary )
School (Private Primary Aided School )
granted by BMC since 2009 -100%), )
::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2021 05:32:10 :::
ppn 4 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
125, Dimtimkar Road, Nagpada, )
Mumbai 400 008 ) ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1829 OF 2019
Ashiq Ali Deen Mohammed )
Son of Deen Mohammed )
Date of Birth : 6.4.1956, )
Age : 63 years, 3 Months )
Retired Clerk (Group 'C' Post) )
from Muslim Education Society )
Urdu Primary School, Kurla (West), )
Mumbai - 400 070 and residing at : )
Aman Andheri S.R.A. Co-operative )
Housing Society, Juhu Galli, Near fit )
Fine Tailor, Andheri (West), )
Mumbai 400 058, State of Maharashtra. ) ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai, )
Through Municipal Commissioner, )
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, )
Mahapalika Marg, Mumbai 400 001. )
2. Municipal Commissioner )
Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai, )
Education Department, Mahapalika Marg, )
Mumbai 400 001. )
3. Education Officer, )
Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai, )
Bhantewadi, Pragati Vidyalaya, )
Dadar (West), Mumbai 400 028. )
4. Dy. Education Officer )
Private Primary Aided Schools, )
Bhantewadi, Pragati Vidyalaya, )
Dadar (West), Mumbai 400 028. )
::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2021 05:32:10 :::
ppn 5 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
5. Administrative Officer, )
'L' Ward, Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai)
Education Department, Kurla (West), )
Mumbai 400 070. )
6. The Superintendent (Education) )
Private Primary Schools, )
Education Department, )
Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai )
S.S. Bengali Municipal Building )
2nd floor, Dr. Babasaheb Jayakar Marg, )
Opp. M.F. Pandey Parse Dharma Shala, )
Near Charni Road Railway Station (East) )
Thakurdwar, Mumbai 400 004. )
7. State of Maharashtra )
Through AGP, Education Department )
Mantralaya Mumbai 400 021. )
8. Muslim Education Society )
Urdu Primary School, through its )
Head Master, Kurla (West), )
Mumbai 400 070. ) ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 927 OF 2019
1. Meena Shyamkant Bhawsar )
Wife of Shri Shyamkant Prabhakar Bhawsar )
Date of Birth : 13.3.1956 age 62 yrs, 9 mths.)
worked as : Special Teacher (Group 'B' post))
(initial date of appointment in service:13.6.1988)
as Special Teacher and date of retirement )
31.3.2014 as Special Teacher ) from )
Balniketan Primary School (Private Primary
Aided School granted by BMC since 2001 )
Kandivali, Mumbai and residing at : Flat )
No.203, Manorat Co-operative Society, )
Near New India Bank, Charkop, Kandivali )
(West), Mumbai 400 067, State of Maharashtra)
::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2021 05:32:10 :::
ppn 6 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
2. Shailaja Jaikumar Bagwe )
Wife of Shri Jaikumar F. Bagwe )
Date of Birth : 14.5.1954 age 64 yrs, 7 mths.)
worked as : Head Mistress (Group 'A' post) )
(initial date of appointment in service:13.6.1987)
as Teacher and date of retirement 31.5.2012)
as Head Mistress) from BMC Private Aided )
School, Jayaben B. Khot, Gujarati Primary )
School and residing at : D/516, Goverdhan)
Nagar, Opp. Poinsar Gymkhana, Kandivali )
(West), Mumbai 400 067, State of Maharashtra)
State of Maharashtra )
3. Sanjaya Satish Vartak )
Wife of Shri Satish Ganpat Vartak )
Date of Birth : 31.3.1956 age 62 yrs, 9 mths.)
worked as : Head Mistress (Group 'A' post) )
(initial date of appointment in service:9.7.1985)
as Teacher and date of retirement 31.3.2014)
as Head Mistress) from BMC Private Aided )
School since 2001, Samata Vidya Mandir, )
Kandivali (East), Mumbai 400 101 and )
th
residing at 703, Chinmai Society, 7 Floor, )
Ashok Nagar, Kandivali (East), Mumbai, )
State of Maharashtra )
4. Nalini Avinash Gagangras, )
Wife of Shri Avinash Kashinath Gagangras, )
date of birth: 10.03.1954, age 64 yrs 09 mths)
worked as s Assistant Teacher (Group "B" post)
(initial date of appointment in service: 14.06.1982
as Assistant Teacher, and date of retirement : )
31.03.2012 as Assistant Teacher) from B.M.C)
Private Primary Aided School since 2001 - )
Jogeshwari Education Society Primary School)
Gumpha Road, Jogeshwari, Mumbai, and )
residing at : 304, Jeevan Chhaya, )
Arya Chanakya Nagar, Akurli Road, )
Kandivali (East), Mumbai, )
State of Maharashtra - Pin Code :400101. )
::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2021 05:32:10 :::
ppn 7 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
5. Anuradha Arun Chindarkar, )
Wife of Shri Arun Tukaram Chindarkar, )
date of birth: 25.09.1955, age 63 yrs 03 mths,)
worked as : Special Teacher (Group "B" post)
(initial date of appointment in service: 17.06.1980)
as Special Teacher and date of retirement : )
30.09.2013 as Special Teacher) from Private )
Primary Aided School granted by BMC since 2001)
SARASWATI Vidya Mandir, Ghatkopar (West), )
Mumbai, and residing at : A-14, )
Indrayani Complex, J.K. Sawant Marg, )
Dadar (West) Mumbai, )
State of Maharashtra - Pin Code :400028. )
6. Esperance Charles Falcao )
Wife of Mr..'Charles P. Falcao, date of birth: )
18.01.1958, age 60 years 11 months, worked)
as : Clerk (Group "C" post) (initial date of )
appointment in service: 13.06.1987 )
as Clerk and date of retirement : 31.01.2016 )
as Clerk) from Private Primary Aided School)
granted by B.M.C. since 2001 - Pal Rajendra)
Marathi Primary School, Kandivali (East), )
Mumbai 400101, and residing at : )
Shalom House, Kuran Wadim, Khochude, )
Mulgaon, Vasai, Taluka Vasai, )
District-Palghar," )
State of Maharashtra - Pin Code :401201. )
7. Aarti Prakash Sawant, )
Wife of Shri Prakash Shivaji Sawant, )
date of birth: 06.10.1955, age 63 yrs 02 mths,)
worked as : Assistant Teacher (Group "B" post)
(initial date of appointment in service: 05.10.1982)
as Assistant Teacher and date of retirement : )
31.10.2013 as Assistant Teacher) from BMC )
Private Primary Aided School since 2001 - )
Saraswati Vidya Mandir, Ghatkopar (West), )
Mumbai and residing at : 56/354, )
Sanket Co-operative Housing Society, )
::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2021 05:32:10 :::
ppn 8 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
Dindoshi Nagar, Malad (East), Mumbai, )
State of Maharashtra - Pin Code :400097. )
8. Prabha Mukund Kunte, )
Wife of Shri Mukund Narayan Kunte, )
date of birth: 27.02.1955, age 63 yrs 10 mths,)
worked as : Head Mistress (Group "A" post)
(initial date of appointment in service : 12.06.1978)
as Assistant Teacher, and date of retirement: )
28.02.2013 as Head Mistress) from BMC )
Private Primary Aided School since 2001, )
Jogeshwari Education Society School, )
Gumpha Road, Jogeshwari (East), )
Mumbai 400060 and residing at: 002, )
Pratik-B, Building No.2, Shantivan Complex,)
Aagashi Road, Bhaji Galli (Market Lane), )
Near Swad Hotel, Virar (West), Taluka-Vasai,)
District -Palghar, )
State of Maharashtra-Pin Code : 401303. )
9. Vithabai Narayan Karande )
Wife of Shri Narayan Kahandu Karande, )
date of birth: 01.06.1955, age 63 yrs 07 mths,)
worked as : Head Mistress (Group "A" post)
(initial date of appointment in service : 01.07.1985)
as Head Mistress and date of retirement : 31.05.2013)
as Head Mistress) from Private Aided Primary )
School granted by B.M.C - Shri Mohan )
Moreshwar Bhoir Primary School, )
S.N.Dubey Road, Rawalpada, Dahisar (East),)
Mumbai 400068, and residing at : )
nd
Grishma Enclave, D-204, 2 Floor, )
Opp. Gaurav Regency, Near Bus Stop No.15,)
Mira-Bhayandar Road, Mira Road (East), )
District Thane, )
State of Maharashtra - Pin Code: 401107. )
10. Pratima Chandrakant Sawant, )
Wd/o Late Shri Chandrakant Ankush Sawant,)
date of birth: 08.03.1956, age 62 yrs 09 mths,)
worked as : Head Mistress (Group "A" post)
::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2021 05:32:10 :::
ppn 9 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
(initial date of appointment in service : 13.06.1986 )
as Head Mistress and date of retirement : 31.03.2014)
as Head Mistress) from Private Aided Primary )
School granted by BMC-Parampujya )
Bajrangdas, Bappa Vidyalaya, Dahisar (East )
Mumbai 400068 and residing at : 104, )
Ramdoot, Maruti Nagar, Shivvallabh Cross )
Road, Dahisar (East), Mumbai, )
State of Maharashtra - Pin Code: 400068. )
11. Anna Rau Gavali )
Son of Rau Bhau Gavali (Date of Birth: )
01.05.1955) Age : 63 Years 07 months, )
worked as : Principal (Group "A" Post) )
in Private Primary School - Anudatta )
Vidyalay Primary School, Kranti Nagar, )
Near MHADA Vasahat, Akurli Road, )
Kandivali (East), Mumbai 400101, (initially )
appointed in service as Head Master(Principal)
on 06.06.1987 and Date of retirement 30.04.2013 )
as Principal), and residing at : Room No.1, )
Sai Shradha Society No.39, Kandivali (East )
Mumbai 400101, State of Maharashtra. )
12. Ram Sajiwan Upadhyay )
Son of Shri Harinandan Upadhyay (Date of )
Birth:01.01.1956) Age : 62 Years 11 months,)
worked as : Assistant Teacher (Group "B" Post)
in Private Primary School - R.C.Maruti Primary)
School, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (East)
MIDC, Mumbai 400093, Initially appointed )
in service as Assistant Teacher on 21.08.1992)
and Date of retirement 31.12.2013 as Assistant)
Teacher), and residing at : Subhash Nagar )
No.2, Her-Her Mahadev Society, MIDC, )
Subhash Nagar No.2, MIDC-Andheri (East) )
Mumbai 400093, State of Maharashtra. )
13. Rambaran S. Pal )
Son of Sitaram Ramphal Pal (Date of Birth: )
08.05.1955) Age : 63 Years 07 months, )
::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2021 05:32:10 :::
ppn 10 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
worked as : Head Master (Group "A" Post) )
in Private Primary School - Pal Rajendra )
Hindi Primary School, Hanuman Nagar, )
Kandivali (East), Mumbai 400101, )
Initially appointed in service as Assistant )
Teacher on 13.06.1984 and Date of retirement)
31.05.2013 as Head Master), and residing at )
Room No.5, Lalji Pathak Chawl, Tanaji Nagar,)
Kurar Village, Malad (East), Mumbai 400097, )
State of Maharashtra. ) ... Petitioners
Versus
1. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai,)
Through-Municipal Commissioner, Municipal)
Corporation of Gr. Mumbai, Mahapalika Marg, )
Mumbai - 400001. )
2. Municipal Commissioner, )
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, )
Education Department, Mahapalika Marg, )
Mumbai 400001. )
3. Education Officer, )
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, )
Bhante Wadi, Pragati Vidyalaya, Dadar (West),
Mumbai - 400028. )
4. Dy. Education Officer, )
Private Primary Aided Schools, Bhante Wadi,)
Pragati Vidyalaya, Dadar (West), )
Mumbai - 400028. )
5. Administrative Officer, )
"L" Ward- Municipal Corporation of Greater )
Mumbai Education Department, Kurla (West),
Mumbai 400070. )
6. The Superintendent (Education) )
Private Primary Schools,Education Department,)
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, )
::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2021 05:32:10 :::
ppn 11 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
S.S. Bengali Municipal Building, Second Floor)
Dr. Babasaheb Jayakar Marg, )
Opp. M.F. Pandey Parse Dharma Shala, )
Near Charni Road Railway Station (East) )
Thakurdwar, Mumbai - 400004. )
7. State of Maharashtra, )
Through : AGP Education Department, )
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400021. )
8. The Head Master, )
Balniketan Primary School (Private Primary )
Aided School granted by B.M.C. since 2001), )
Kandivali (West), Mumbai, 400 067. )
9. The Head Master, )
Jayaben B. Khot Gujarati Primary School, )
B.M.C. Private Aided School since 2001, 1, )
Rajendra Nagar Road, Madhukunj Society, )
Rajendra Nagar, Borivali East, Mumbai, )
Maharashtra 400066. )
10.The Head Master, )
Samata Vidya Mandir, B.M.C. Private Primary )
Aided School since 2001,Kandiv.ali (East), Mumbai-400101.)
11.The Head Master, )
Jogeshwari Education Society Primary School)
B.M.C. Private Primary Aided School since 2001)
Jogeshwari Education Society Primary School)
Gumpha Road, Jogeshwari (East), )
Mumbai 400060. )
12. The Head Master, )
Saraswati Vidya Mandir, Private Primary )
Aided School granted by B.M.C. since 2001 )
Baliram Dinakar Chowk, Barve Nagar, )
Bhatt Wadi, RB Kadam Road, Near Jagruti )
Nagar Metro Station, Ghatkopar West, )
Mumbai- 400084, State of Maharashtra. )
::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2021 05:32:10 :::
ppn 12 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
13. The Head Master, )
Pal Rajendra Marathi Primary School, )
Private Primary Aided School granted by )
B.M.C. since 2001, Akurli Road, Kandivali )
East, Mumbai - 400101 State of Maharashtra.)
14. The Head Master, Saraswati Vidya Mandir,)
BMC Private Primary Aided School since 2001)
Baliram Dinakar Chowk, Barve Nagar, Bhatt Wadi)
RB Kadam Road, Near Jagruti Nagar )
Metro Station, Ghatkopar West, )
Mumbai -400084, State of Maharashtra. )
15. The Head Master, )
Jogeshwari Education Society School, )
Caves Road, Jogeshwari (E), )
Next to Ismile Usuf College, Mumbai-400060)
State of Maharashtra. )
16. The Head Master, )
Shri Mohan Moreshwar Bhoir Primary School)
Private Aided Primary School granted by BMC)
S.N.Dubey Road, Rawalpada, Dahisar (East )
Mumbai 400068 . )
17. The Head Master, )
Parampujya Bajrangdas Bappa Vidyalaya, )
Private Aided Primary School, Dahisar (East)
Mumbai 400068. )
18. The Head Master, )
Anudatta Vidyalay Primary School, )
Kranti Nagar, Near Mhada Vasahat, )
Akurli Road, Kandivali (East), )
Mumbai 400101. )
19. The Head Master, )
R.C.Maruti Primary School, )
Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (East), )
MIDC, Mumbai 400093 )
::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2021 05:32:10 :::
ppn 13 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
20. The Head Master, )
Pal Rajendra Hindi Primary School, )
Hanuman Nagar, Kandivali (East), )
Mumbai 400101. ) ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1912 OF 2019
Pramila Shriram Gaddamwar )
Age:- 59 years, )
Residing at 1B/303, Hema Park, )
Veer Savarkar Marg, Bhandup (East), )
Mumbai 400042 ) .... Petitioners
Versus
1. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation,)
Mahapalika Marg, Near Chhatrapati )
Shivaji Terminus, Mumbai 400 001. )
(Through the Commissioner) )
2. The Education Officer, )
Brihan-Mumbai Municipal Corporation,)
Education Department, Opp. Raje Shivaji)
Vidyalaya, Lakhamshi Nappu Marg, )
Hindu Colony, Dadar (East), )
Mumbai 400 014 )
3. The Superintendent, )
Private Primary School Department, )
776, Bhantewadi BMC School, )
Near Portugiz Church, MTNL Road, )
Dadar (West), Mumbai 400028 )
4. The Chairman/ Secretary, )
Indian Education Society, )
Raja Shivaji Vidyasankul, Hindu Colony,)
Dadar (East), Mumbai 400014 )
5. The Head Master, )
I. E. S. Patkar Guruji (Dadar) Vidyalaya)
::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2021 05:32:10 :::
ppn 14 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
180, Saraswati Nilayam, Hindu Colony,)
Dadar (E), Mumbai 400014 )
6. The State of Maharashtra, )
Through the Secretary, )
School Education & Sports Department,)
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032. )
(Copy to be served in the Office of )
Government Pleader, High Court, )
Original Side, Mumbai ) ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1940 OF 2019
Sushma Budhaji Paradkar )
Age:- 59 years, )
Residing at A/4, Gopuram Society, )
Somani Gram, Ram Mandir Road, )
Goregaon (West), Mumbai 400104 ) ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation,)
Mahapalika Marg, Near Chhatrapati )
Shivaji Terminus, Mumbai 400 001. )
(Through the Commissioner) )
2. The Education Officer, )
Brihan-Mumbai Municipal Corporation,)
Education Department, Opp. Raje Shivaji)
Vidyalaya, Lakhamshi Nappu Marg, )
Hindu Colony, Dadar (East), )
Mumbai 400 014 )
3. The Superintendent, )
Private Primary School Department, )
776, Bhantewadi BMC School, )
Near Portugiz Church, MTNL Road, )
Dadar (West), Mumbai 400028 )
::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2021 05:32:10 :::
ppn 15 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
4. The Chairman/ Secretary, )
Indian Education Society, )
Raja Shivaji Vidyasankul, Hindu Colony,)
Dadar (East), Mumbai 400014 )
5. The Head Master, )
I. E. S. Patkar Guruji (Dadar) Vidyalaya)
180, Saraswati Nilayam, Hindu Colony,)
Dadar (E), Mumbai 400014 )
6. The State of Maharashtra, )
Through the Secretary, )
School Education & Sports Department,)
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032. )
(Copy to be served in the Office of )
Government Pleader, High Court, )
Original Side, Mumbai ) ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2200 OF 2019
Dattaram Tukaram Mandavkar, )
Age:- 63 years, )
Residing at Building No. 17, Room No. 103,)
First Floor, Near Hotel Sunder Vihar, )
Pratiksha Nagar, Sion (East), )
Mumbai 400022 ) .... Petitioner
Versus
1. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation,)
Mahapalika Marg, Near Chhatrapati )
Shivaji Terminus, Mumbai 400 001. )
(Through the Commissioner) )
2. The Education Officer, )
Brihan-Mumbai Municipal Corporation,)
Education Department, Opp. Raje Shivaji)
Vidyalaya, Lakhamshi Nappu Marg, )
Hindu Colony, Dadar (East), )
Mumbai 400 014 )
::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2021 05:32:10 :::
ppn 16 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
3. The Superintendent, )
Private Primary School Department, )
776, Bhantewadi BMC School, )
Near Portugiz Church, MTNL Road, )
Dadar (West), Mumbai 400028 )
4. The Chairman/ Secretary, )
Shiv Shikshan Sanstha, )
D. D. @ Babasaheb Deshpande )
(D. S. High School) School, )
Sion (West), Mumbai - 400 022. )
5. The Head Master, )
D. [email protected] Babasaheb Deshpande )
(D. S. High School) Primary School, )
Primary Section, (Marathi Medium), )
Sion (West), Mumbai - 400 022. )
6. The State of Maharashtra, )
Through the Secretary, )
School Education & Sports Department,)
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032. )
(Copy to be served in the Office of )
Government Pleader, High Court, )
Original Side, Mumbai ) ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2208 OF 2019
Bhaskar Parshuram Ture, )
Since deceased through his )
Legal representative )
Revati Bhaskar Ture, Age 56 years )
Residing at 73/7, Sumati Rele Niwas, )
Rele Building, Opp. Tata Nagar, )
V. N. Purav Marg, Sion, )
Chunabhatti, Mumbai 400022 ) ... Petitioner
Versus
::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2021 05:32:10 :::
ppn 17 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
1. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation,)
Mahapalika Marg, Near Chhatrapati )
Shivaji Terminus, Mumbai 400 001. )
(Through the Commissioner) )
2. The Education Officer, )
Brihan-Mumbai Municipal Corporation,)
Education Department, Opp. Raje Shivaji)
Vidyalaya, Lakhamshi Nappu Marg, )
Hindu Colony, Dadar (East), )
Mumbai 400 014 )
3. The Superintendent, )
Private Primary School Department, )
776, Bhantewadi BMC School, )
Near Portugiz Church, MTNL Road, )
Dadar (West), Mumbai 400028 )
4. The Chairman/ Secretary, )
Shiv Shikshan Sanstha, )
D. D. @ Babasaheb Deshpande )
(D. S. High School) School, )
Sion (West), Mumbai - 400 022. )
5. The Head Master, )
D. [email protected] Babasaheb Deshpande )
(D. S. High School) Primary School, )
Primary Section, (Marathi Medium), )
Sion (West), Mumbai - 400 022. )
6. The State of Maharashtra, )
Through the Secretary, )
School Education & Sports Department,)
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032. )
(Copy to be served in the Office of )
Government Pleader, High Court, )
Original Side, Mumbai ) ....Respondents
WITH
::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2021 05:32:10 :::
ppn 18 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
WRIT PETITION NO. 2522 OF 2019
Sheetal Shashikant Raote, )
Age:- 59 years, )
Residing at House No. D-72, )
First Floor, Road No. 2, )
Chembur Gaothan, Chembur, )
Mumbai 400071 ) .... Petitioner
Versus
1. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation,)
Mahapalika Marg, Near Chhatrapati )
Shivaji Terminus, Mumbai 400 001. )
(Through the Commissioner) )
2. The Education Officer, )
Brihan-Mumbai Municipal Corporation,)
Education Department, Opp. Raje Shivaji)
Vidyalaya, Lakhamshi Nappu Marg, )
Hindu Colony, Dadar (East), )
Mumbai 400 014 )
3. The Superintendent, )
Private Primary School Department, )
776, Bhantewadi BMC School, )
Near Portugiz Church, MTNL Road, )
Dadar (West), Mumbai 400028 )
4. The Chairman/ General Secretary, )
Academy of Fine Arts & Crafts, )
Principal M. U. Mandlecha Marg, )
Chembur, Mumbai 400071 )
5. The Head Master, )
Afac English School )
Primary Marathi Section, )
Principal M. U. Mandlecha Marg, )
Chembur, Mumbai 400071 )
::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2021 05:32:10 :::
ppn 19 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
6. The State of Maharashtra, )
Through the Secretary, )
School Education & Sports Department,)
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032. )
(Copy to be served in the Office of )
Government Pleader, High Court, )
Original Side, Mumbai ) ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2523 OF 2019
Prabhakar Dhondu Surwade, )
Age:- 60 years, )
Residing at Building No. 35/B Wing, )
Room No. 003, Sangharsh Co-operative )
Housing Society, Kukreja Compound, )
Vashinaka, R. C. Marg, )
Chembur, Mumbai 400074 ) .... Petitioner
Versus
1. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation,)
Mahapalika Marg, Near Chhatrapati )
Shivaji Terminus, Mumbai 400 001. )
(Through the Commissioner) )
2. The Education Officer, )
Brihan-Mumbai Municipal Corporation,)
Education Department, Opp. Raje Shivaji)
Vidyalaya, Lakhamshi Nappu Marg, )
Hindu Colony, Dadar (East), )
Mumbai 400 014 )
3. The Superintendent, )
Private Primary School Department, )
776, Bhantewadi BMC School, )
Near Portugiz Church, MTNL Road, )
Dadar (West), Mumbai 400028 )
4. The Chairman/ Secretary, )
Lokmanya Shikshan Sanstha, )
::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2021 05:32:10 :::
ppn 20 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
Jawahar Vidyabhavan, RCF Colony, )
Chembur, Mumbai 400074 )
5. The Head Master, )
Shree Narayanrao Acharya Vidyaniketan)
H. P. Colony, Mahul Road, )
Chembur, Mumbai 400074 )
6. The State of Maharashtra, )
Through the Secretary, )
School Education & Sports Department,)
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032. )
(Copy to be served in the Office of )
Government Pleader, High Court, )
Original Side, Mumbai ) ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2526 OF 2019
Kalpana Hemant Naik )
Age:- 60 years, )
Residing at 9 Anjalika Sadan, )
Sitaladevi Temple Road, Mahim, )
Mumbai 400016 ) .... Petitioner
Versus
1. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation,)
Mahapalika Marg, Near Chhatrapati )
Shivaji Terminus, Mumbai 400 001. )
(Through the Commissioner) )
2. The Education Officer, )
Brihan-Mumbai Municipal Corporation,)
Education Department, Opp. Raje Shivaji)
Vidyalaya, Lakhamshi Nappu Marg, )
Hindu Colony, Dadar (East), )
Mumbai 400 014 )
3. The Superintendent, )
Private Primary School Department, )
776, Bhantewadi BMC School, )
Near Portugiz Church, MTNL Road, )
Dadar (West), Mumbai 400028 )
::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2021 05:32:10 :::
ppn 21 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
4. The Chairman/ Secretary, )
Sharadashram Vidyamandir, )
Dr. Bhavanishankar Dadarkar Marg, )
Dadar (West), Mumbai 400028 )
5. The Head Master, )
Sharadashram Vidyamandir Marathi )
Primary School, )
Dr. Bhavanishankar Dadarkar Marg, )
Dadar (West), Mumbai 400028 )
6. The State of Maharashtra, )
Through the Secretary, )
School Education & Sports Department,)
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032. )
(Copy to be served in the Office of )
Government Pleader, High Court, )
Original Side, Mumbai ) ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2695 OF 2019
Arpita Ajvilas Deshpande )
Since deceased through her )
Legal representative )
Ajavilas Bhaskar Deshpande )
Age: - 69 years )
Residing at C 1109 Kukreja Residency, )
Opposite Shatabdi Hospital, Ghatla, )
Chembur, Mumbai 400071 ) .... Petitioner
Versus
1. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation,)
Mahapalika Marg, Near Chhatrapati )
Shivaji Terminus, Mumbai 400 001. )
(Through the Commissioner) )
2. The Education Officer, )
Brihan-Mumbai Municipal Corporation,)
Education Department, Opp. Raje Shivaji)
::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2021 05:32:10 :::
ppn 22 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
Vidyalaya, Lakhamshi Nappu Marg, )
Hindu Colony, Dadar (East), )
Mumbai 400 014 )
3. The Superintendent, )
Private Primary School Department, )
776, Bhantewadi BMC School, )
Near Portugiz Church, MTNL Road, )
Dadar (West), Mumbai 400028 )
4. The Chairman/ General Secretary, )
Academy of Fine Arts & Crafts, )
Principal M. U. Mandlecha Marg, )
Chembur, Mumbai 400071 )
5. The Head Master, )
Afac English School )
Primary Marathi Section, )
Principal M. U. Mandlecha Marg, )
Chembur, Mumbai 400071 )
6. The State of Maharashtra, )
Through the Secretary, )
School Education & Sports Department,)
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032. )
(Copy to be served in the Office of )
Government Pleader, High Court, )
Original Side, Mumbai ) ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 81 OF 2020
Amita Anil Walavalkar, )
Age:- 60 years, )
Residing at 15, Indraprastha CHS Ltd. )
Khardeonagar, N. G. Marg, )
Chembur 400071 ) .... Petitioner
Versus
1. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation,)
Mahapalika Marg, Near Chhatrapati )
::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2021 05:32:10 :::
ppn 23 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
Shivaji Terminus, Mumbai 400 001. )
(Through the Commissioner) )
2. The Education Officer, )
Brihan-Mumbai Municipal Corporation,)
Education Department, Opp. Raje Shivaji)
Vidyalaya, Lakhamshi Nappu Marg, )
Hindu Colony, Dadar (East), )
Mumbai 400 014 )
3. The Superintendent, )
Private Primary School Department, )
Triveni Sangam BMC School, )
Mahadeo Palav Marg, Curry Road (East)
Mumbai 400012 )
4. The Chairman/ Secretary, )
Indian Education Society, )
Raja Shivaji Vidyasankul, Hindu Colony,)
Dadar (East), Mumbai 400014 )
5. The Head Master, )
I. E. S. Harne Guruji Vidyalaya )
Government Colony, Bandra (East), )
Mumbai 400051 )
6. The State of Maharashtra, )
Through the Secretary, )
School Education & Sports Department)
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032. )
(Copy to be served in the Office of )
Government Pleader, High Court, )
Original Side, Mumbai ) ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2210 OF 2019
Manjusha Manohar Walanj )
Age 61 years, Residing at C-509, )
Sea Queen Excellency, )
Plot No.63 to 65 & 73 to 75, )
::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2021 05:32:10 :::
ppn 24 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
Sector 44A, Seawoods )
Navi Mumbai 400 706 ) ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation )
Mahapalika Marg, Near Chhatrapati )
Shivaji Terminus, Mumbai 400 001. )
(Through the Commissioner) )
2. The Education Officer, )
Brihan-Mumbai Municipal Corporation )
Education Department, Opp.Raje Shivaji )
Vidyalaya, Lakhamshi Nappu Marg, )
Hindu Colony, Dadar (East), )
Mumbai 400 014. )
3. The Superintendent, )
Private Primary School Department, )
776, Bhantewadi BMC School, )
Near Portugiz Church, MTNL Road, )
Dadar (West), Mumbai 400 028. )
4. The Chairman/Secretary )
Shiv Shikshan Sanstha, )
D.D. @ Babasaheb Deshpande )
(D.S. High School) School, )
Sion (West,) Mumbai 400 022. )
5. The Head Master, )
D.D. @ Babasaheb Deshpande )
(D.S. High School) Primary School, )
Primary Section (Marathi Medium) )
Sion (West), Mumbai 400 022. )
6. The State of Maharashtra )
Through the Secretary, )
School Education & Sports Department )
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032. ) ... Respondents
WITH
::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2021 05:32:10 :::
ppn 25 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
WRIT PETITION NO. 2215 OF 2019
Bhavana Balraj Deshmukh )
Age:- 59 years, )
Residing at Mohan Suburbia, )
Salisbury Phase-2, Building No. R2, )
Room No. 102, Ambernath (West), )
Thane 421505 ) .... Petitioner
Versus
1. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation,)
Mahapalika Marg, Near Chhatrapati )
Shivaji Terminus, Mumbai 400 001. )
(Through the Commissioner) )
2. The Education Officer, )
Brihan-Mumbai Municipal Corporation,)
Education Department, Opp. Raje Shivaji)
Vidyalaya, Lakhamshi Nappu Marg, )
Hindu Colony, Dadar (East), )
Mumbai 400 014 )
3. The Superintendent, )
Private Primary School Department, )
776, Bhantewadi BMC School, )
Near Portugiz Church, MTNL Road, )
Dadar (West), Mumbai 400028 )
4. The Chairman/ Secretary, )
Shiv Shikshan Sanstha, )
D. D. @ Babasaheb Deshpande )
(D. S. High School) School, )
Sion (West), Mumbai - 400 022. )
5. The Head Master, )
D. [email protected] Babasaheb Deshpande )
(D. S. High School) Primary School, )
Primary Section, (Marathi Medium), )
Sion (West), Mumbai - 400 022. )
::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2021 05:32:10 :::
ppn 26 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
6. The State of Maharashtra, )
Through the Secretary, )
School Education & Sports Department,)
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032. )
(Copy to be served in the Office of )
Government Pleader, High Court, )
Original Side, Mumbai ) ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2194 OF 2019
Leena Jagdish Dalal )
Age:- 60 years, )
Residing at 45/C, Kamgar Nagar, )
Anand Niwas, S. G. Barve Road, )
Kurla (East), Mumbai 400024 ) .... Petitioner
Versus
1. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation,)
Mahapalika Marg, Near Chhatrapati )
Shivaji Terminus, Mumbai 400 001. )
(Through the Commissioner) )
2. The Education Officer, )
Brihan-Mumbai Municipal Corporation,)
Education Department, Opp. Raje Shivaji)
Vidyalaya, Lakhamshi Nappu Marg, )
Hindu Colony, Dadar (East), )
Mumbai 400 014 )
3. The Superintendent, )
Private Primary School Department, )
776, Bhantewadi BMC School, )
Near Portugiz Church, MTNL Road, )
Dadar (West), Mumbai 400028 )
4. The Chairman/ Secretary, )
Shiv Shikshan Sanstha, )
D. D. @ Babasaheb Deshpande )
::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2021 05:32:10 :::
ppn 27 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
(D. S. High School) School, )
Sion (West), Mumbai - 400 022. )
5. The Head Master, )
D. [email protected] Babasaheb Deshpande )
(D. S. High School) Primary School, )
Primary Section, (Marathi Medium), )
Sion (West), Mumbai - 400 022. )
6. The State of Maharashtra, )
Through the Secretary, )
School Education & Sports Department,)
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032. )
(Copy to be served in the Office of )
Government Pleader, High Court, )
Original Side, Mumbai ) ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2197 OF 2019
Megha Mohan Pawar )
Age:- 61 years, )
Residing at Building No. 87, )
Room No. 504 A Wing, )
Opp. New English School, )
Nehru Nagar, Kurla (East), )
Mumbai 400024 ) .... Petitioner
Versus
1. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation,)
Mahapalika Marg, Near Chhatrapati )
Shivaji Terminus, Mumbai 400 001. )
(Through the Commissioner) )
2. The Education Officer, )
Brihan-Mumbai Municipal Corporation,)
Education Department, Opp. Raje Shivaji)
Vidyalaya, Lakhamshi Nappu Marg, )
Hindu Colony, Dadar (East), )
Mumbai 400 014 )
::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2021 05:32:10 :::
ppn 28 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
3. The Superintendent, )
Private Primary School Department, )
776, Bhantewadi BMC School, )
Near Portugiz Church, MTNL Road, )
Dadar (West), Mumbai 400028. )
4. The Chairman/ Secretary, )
Shiv Shikshan Sanstha, )
D. D. @ Babasaheb Deshpande )
(D. S. High School) School, )
Sion (West), Mumbai - 400 022. )
5. The Head Master, )
D. [email protected] Babasaheb Deshpande )
(D. S. High School) Primary School, )
Primary Section, (Marathi Medium), )
Sion (West), Mumbai - 400 022. )
6. The State of Maharashtra, )
Through the Secretary, )
School Education & Sports Department,)
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032. )
(Copy to be served in the Office of )
Government Pleader, High Court, )
Original Side, Mumbai ) ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3423 OF 2019
Kavita Nandkishor Haldankar )
Age 62 years, Occupation-Retired )
Residing at C/o Lata Bargi, )
102, Deepa Society, )
Sant Tukaram Marg, Mulund (East) )
Mumbai 400 081. ) ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation )
Mahapalika Marg, Near Chhatrapati )
Shivaji Terminus, Mumbai 400 001. )
(Through the Commissioner) )
::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2021 05:32:10 :::
ppn 29 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
2. The Education Officer, )
Brihan-Mumbai Municipal Corporation )
Education Department, Opp.Raje Shivaji )
Vidyalaya, Lakhamshi Nappu Marg, )
Hindu Colony, Dadar (East), )
Mumbai 400 014. )
3. The Superintendent, )
Private Primary School Department, )
776, Bhantewadi BMC School, )
Near Portugiz Church, MTNL Road, )
Dadar (West), Mumbai 400 028. )
4. The Chairman/Secretary )
Shiv Shikshan Sanstha, )
D.D. @ Babasaheb Deshpande )
(D.S. High School) School, )
Sion (West,) Mumbai 400 022. )
5. The Head Master, )
D.D. @ Babasaheb Deshpande )
(D.S. High School) Primary School, )
Primary Section (Marathi Medium) )
Sion (West), Mumbai 400 022. )
6. The State of Maharashtra )
Through the Secretary, )
School Education & Sports Department )
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032. ) ... Respondents
----
Mr. Kiran S. Bapat a/w Mr.Gaurav S. Gawande i/by M/s. Desai and
Desai Associates, for the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.635/2020.
Mr. Kiran S. Bapat a/w Mr.Gaurav S. Gawande and T.R. Yadav i/by Ms.
Anjali Mishra for the Petitioners in Writ Petition No.1260/2018.
Mr. Sachin Punde for the Petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.1912/2019,
1940/2019, 2200/2019, 2208/2019, 2522/2019, 2523/2019, 2526/2019,
2695/2019, 81/2020, 2210/2019, 2215/2019, 2194/2019 and 2197/2019.
Mr. Ravindra J. Dhond for the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.3423/2019.
::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2021 05:32:10 :::
ppn 30 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
Mr. Rahul Walia a/w Ms.Asmita Pendharkar for the Petitioners in Writ
Petition Nos.1942/2019, 1829/2019 and 927/2019.
Mr. A. V. Bukhari, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. B. V. Bukhari and Ms.
Sheetal Metkari i/by Mr.Sunil Sonawane for the Respondents Corporation
-M.C.G.M. in Writ Petition No.1260 of 2018.
Mr. B. V. Bukhari a/w Ms. Sheetal Metkari i/by Mr.Sunil Sonawane for
the Respondents Corporation -M.C.G.M. in Writ Petition Nos.1912 of
2019, 2210 of 2019 and 927 of 2019.
Ms.Sheetal Metakari i/by Mr.Sunil Sonawane for the respondents
Corporation -M.C.G.M. in Writ Petition Nos.1942/2019, 1829/2019,
1940/2019, 2194/2019, 2215/2019, 2197/2019, 2208/2019, 2200/2019,
635/20, 2523/19, 2526/2019, 2522/2019, 2695/2019, 3423/2019, 81/2020
and 927/2019.
Ms. Jyoti Chavan, Asst. Government Pleader for State-Respondent in
Writ Petition Nos.1912/2019, 1940/2019, 2194/2019, 2215/2019,
2210/2019, 2197/2019, 2208/2019, 2200/2019, 2523/2019, 2526/2019,
2522/2019, 2695/2019, 3423/2019, 81/2020 and 927/2019.
---
CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA AND
R.N. LADDHA, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 7th December 2021
PRONOUNCED ON : 23rd December 2021
Judgment :- (Per R.D. Dhanuka, J.)
. By consent of parties, this batch of petitions were heard
together and are being disposed of by common order :-
2. By an order dated 16th November 2021, this Court directed
the office to place these matters for hearing and final disposal on 29 th
November 2021 at 2.30 p.m.
ppn 31 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
3. Learned counsel for the parties jointly state that the facts
and questions of law in all these petitions are identical. The judgment of
this Court in Writ Petition No.1260 of 2018 would apply to the other
petitions. Writ Petition No.1260 of 2018 is thus treated as a lead matter.
Facts and Submissions in Writ Petition No.1260 of 2018
4. The petitioner was appointed as a Headmistress in the
primary school run by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC).
The respondent no.3 is a private Institution running Private Primary
Aided School of Greater Mumbai. The appointment of the petitioner was
duly approved by the respondent nos.1 & 2. The petitioner retired from
service on 31st August 2016 on attaining the age of 58 years and after
putting in 23 years of continuous service. The respondent no.3 school
started getting grant in aid from BMC since June 2010 initially at the
rate of 20% and thereafter at 100% since March 2014.
5. In the year 1979, BMC floated a pensionary scheme called
as 'Pension scheme for Private Primary Aided School of Greater
Mumbai' w.e.f. 1st April 1979. It is the case of the petitioner that the
petitioner had joined the services in the year 1982 in a private primary
aided school which school started getting grant in aid in 2001 initially
at 20% and finally got 100% grant in aid in 2005. Since the respondent
nos.1 & 2 refused to release pension of the petitioner inspite of various
representations, the petitioner filed this petition inter alia praying for a
writ of mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith release the
pension of the petitioner and arrears of pension along with 18% interest
of the petitioner.
ppn 32 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
6. The details of the petitioners in remaining petitions such
as date of appointment, date of school getting Grant-in-aid initially and
100%, date of retirement are set out as under :-
Writ Petition No.635 of 2020
Sr. Name of Date of 20% Grant 100% Date of
No. the Appointment Approval Grant Retirement
Petitioner/s Approval
1 Smita 13.06.1988 2005 2009 30.06.2015
Sudhir
Janvekar
Writ Petition No.1942 of 2019
Sr. Name of Date of 20% Grant 100% Date of
No. the Appointment Approval Grant Retirement
Petitioner/s Approval
1 Ansari 23.06.1980 2005 2009 31.05.2016
Razia
2. Sayed 14.10.1980 2005 2009 31.05.2016
Ishrat
Sultana
Writ Petition No.1829 of 2019
Sr. Name of Date of 20% Grant 100% Date of
No. the Appointment Approval Grant Retirement
Petitioner/s Approval
1 Ashiq Ali 01.04.1991 2002 2006 30.04.2014
Deen
Mohammed
ppn 33 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
Writ Petition No.927 of 2019
Sr. Name of the Date of 20% 100% Date of
No. Petitioner/s Appointment Grant Grant Retirement
Approval Approval
1 Mrs.Meena 13.06.1988 2001 2005 31.03.2014
Shyamkant
Bhawsar
2 Mrs.Shailaja 13.06.1987 2001 2005 31.05.2012
Jaikumar
Bagwe
3 Mrs.Sanjaya 09.07.1995 2001 2005 31.03.2014
Satish Vartak
4 Mrs.Nalini 14.06.1982 2001 2005 31.03.2012
Avinash
Gagangras
5 Mrs.Anuradha 17.06.1980 2001 2005 30.09.2013
Arun
Chindarkar
6 Mrs.Esperance 13.06.1987 2005 2010 31.01.2016
Charles Falcao
7 Mrs.Aarti 05.10.1982 2001 2005 31.10.2013
Prakash
Sawant
8 Smt.Prabha 12.06.1978 2001 2005 28.02.2013
Mukund Kunte
9 Mrs.Vithabai 01.07.1985 2001 2005 31.05.2013
Narayan
Karande
10 Smt.Pratibha 13.06.1986 2001 2005 31.03.2014
Chandrakant
Sawant
11 Anna Rau 06.06.1987 2001 2005 30.04.2013
Gavali
12 Ram Sajiwan 21.08.1992 2001 2005 31.12.2013
Upadhyay
ppn 34 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
13 Rambaran S. 13.06.1984 2001 2005 31.05.2013
Pal
Writ Petition No.1912 of 2019
Sr. Name of Date of 20% Grant 100% Grant Date of
No. the Appointment Approval Approval Retirement
Petitioner/s
1 Pramila 01.08.1994 2005 01.04.2009 31.01.2018
Shriram
Gaddamwar
Writ Petition No.1940 of 2019
Sr. Name of Date of 20% Grant 100% Date of
No. the Appointment Approval Grant Retirement
Petitioner/s Approval
1 Sushma 13.06.1985 2005 01.04.2009 31.07.2017
Budhaji
Paradkar
Writ Petition No.2200 of 2019
Sr. Name of Date of 20% Grant 100% Date of
No. the Appointment Approval Grant Retirement
Petitioner/s Approval
1 Dattaram 01.06.1978 2005 01.04.2009 31.03.2014
Tukaram
Mandavkar
Writ Petition No.2208 of 2019
Sr. Name of Date of 20% Grant 100% Date of
No. the Appointment Approval Grant Retirement
Petitioner/s Approval
1 Bhaskar 14.04.1996 2005 01.04.2009 30.06.2013
Parshuram
Ture (since
deceased)
ppn 35 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
Writ Petition No.2522 of 2019
Sr. Name of Date of 20% Grant 100% Date of
No. the Appointment Approval Grant Retirement
Petitioner/s Approval
1 Sheetal 13.06.1987 2011 01.04.2015 30.09.2017
Shashikant
Raote
Writ Petition No.2523 of 2019
Sr. Name of Date of 20% Grant 100% Date of
No. the Appointment Approval Grant Retirement
Petitioner/s Approval
1 Prabhakar 01.06.1993 2007 01.04.2011 31.05.2017
Dhondu
Surwade
Writ Petition No.2526 of 2019
Sr. Name of Date of 20% Grant 100% Date of
No. the Appointment Approval Grant Retirement
Petitioner/s Approval
1 Kalpana 07.06.1982 2010 01.04.2014 31.03.2017
Hemant
Naik
Writ Petition No.2695 of 2019
Sr. Name of the Date of 20% Grant 100% Date of
No. Petitioner/s Appointment Approval Grant Retirement
Approval
1 Arpita 16.03.1998 2011 01.04.2015 31.12.2014
Ajvilas
Deshpande
(since
deceased)
ppn 36 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
Writ Petition No.81 of 2020
Sr. Name of Date of 20% Grant 100% Date of
No. the Appointment Approval Grant Retirement
Petitioner/s Approval
1 Amita Anil 14.06.1980 2005 01.04.2009 31.01.2016
Walavalkar
Writ Petition No.2210 of 2019
Sr. Name of Date of 20% Grant 100% Date of
No. the Appointment Approval Grant Retirement
Petitioner/s Approval
1 Manjusha 13.06.1984 2005 01.04.2009 30.04.2016
Manohar
Walanj
Writ Petition No.2215 of 2019
Sr. Name of Date of 20% Grant 100% Date of
No. the Appointment Approval Grant Retirement
Petitioner/s Approval
1 Bhavana 07.06.1982 2005 01.04.2009 31.07.2017
Balraj
Deshmukh
Writ Petition No.2194 of 2019
Sr. Name of Date of 20% Grant 100% Date of
No. the Appointment Approval Grant Retirement
Petitioner/s Approval
1 Leena 15.06.1981 2005 01.04.2009 31.07.2017
Jagdish
Dalalar
ppn 37 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
Writ Petition No.2197 of 2019
Sr. Name of Date of 20% Grant 100% Date of
No. the Appointment Approval Grant Retirement
Petitioner/s Approval
1 Megha 07.06.1982 2005 01.04.2009 31.05.2017
Mohan
Pawar
Writ Petition No.3423 of 2019
Sr. Name of Date of 20% Grant 100% Date of
No. the Appointment Approval Grant Retirement
Petitioner/s Approval
1 Kavita 09.06.1980 2000-2001 2004-2005 30.11.2014
Nandkishor
Haldankar
7. Mr.Bapat, learned counsel for the petitioner invited our
attention to some of the exhibits annexed to the petition. He relied
upon the Circular dated 31st October 1997 issued by the respondent no.1
Corporation i.e. "Pension Scheme extended to the approved staff of the
Private Primary Aided Schools in Greater Mumbai." The BMC initially
proposed to extend the pensionary benefits which included payment of
family pension to the legal heirs of the full time approved, confirmed and
eligible employees of the private primary aided schools who retired,
superannuated and/or expired on or after 1st April 1979 from the private
primary aided schools in Brihan Mumbai vide Education Committee
Resolution No.279 dated 22nd March 1990 and the Corporation Resolution
No.125 dated 7th May 1990 on par with the State Government Resolution
No.VLS/1079/VII (2903) dated 14th February 1980. He submits that the
said pension scheme is applicable to the teaching and non-teaching staff
ppn 38 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
of private primary aided schools of Greater Mumbai which came into
effect from 1st April 1979.
8. It is submitted that there was no condition prescribed under
the said pension scheme that employees of only such private primary
aided schools of Greater Mumbai who had started getting 100% grant
in aid from the Corporation, would get pension and not otherwise. He
relied upon Clause 5(iv)(e) of the Pension Scheme and would submit that
it is clarified that the 'approved staff' means the staff of Private
Primary School approved by the Education Department of the Municipal
Corporation for the purpose of sanctioning grant in aid to the school.
He relied upon Clause 5(iv)(j) which provides that all other terms as
defined under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Pension Rules shall
apply to the said pension scheme dated 31st October 1997 mutatis
mutandis. He relied upon Clause 5(v) of the said Pension scheme which
provides that the full time approved and confirmed teaching and non-
teaching staff who was in service in the Private Primary Aided School in
Greater Mumbai as on 31st March 1979 and retired/superannuated or will
retire/superannuate subsequently will have an option to come under the
said Pension Scheme.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the
definition of 'Qualifying service' under Rule 5(f) of the Pension Rules
(1953) issued by the respondent no.1 Corporation.
10. It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed on
permanent post and thus would fall under the definition of qualifying
ppn 39 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
service as defined under the said Pension Rules. It is submitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that Anuradha Jayant Gangakhedkar, an
employee of such private primary aided school was not given pension
due and payable to her by the respondent no.1 Corporation. She filed writ
petition before this Court bearing Writ Petition No.415 of 2012. Learned
counsel placed reliance on the judgment delivered by a Division Bench
of this Court on 26th July 2012 comprising of one of us (R. D. Dhanuka,
J.) filed by Anuradha Jayant Gangakhedkar Vs.Brihanmumbai
Municipal Corporation & Ors. He submits that in identical facts in hand,
the petitioner therein was not granted pension on similar grounds. This
Court held that the expression 'qualifying service' is defined in Rule
5(1)(f) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Pension Rules, 1953 to
mean and include among others duty performed in a permanent post.
11. This Court has also considered the Circular dated 20th July
2012 issued by the Education Officer (primary) stating that it was only
service which is rendered after the school came into receipt of hundred
per cent grant in aid that would count as qualifying service. This Court
held that there was no dispute that the Petitioner had worked on a
sanctioned post. Her services were duly approved by the Education
Officer. The test which must be applied is as to whether an employee was
a full time confirmed and approved member of the teaching or non-
teaching staff of a private primary aided school on the date of her
retirement. If that test is satisfied, the Pension Scheme is made applicable
by virtue of the provisions of clause 5(ii). There is no warrant in the
Pension Scheme or the Pension Rules to exclude while computing
qualifying service, the service which is rendered by an employee before a
ppn 40 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
school came to be in receipt of grant-in-aid. So long as the school was in
receipt of grant-in-aid on the date on which an employee retired from
service upon attaining the age of superannuation, the application of the
Pension Scheme would be attracted. The Petitioner was an employee of a
private primary aided school on the date of retirement and was hence
eligible.
12. It is submitted that the respondent nos.1 and 2 cannot
compute the qualifying service for the purpose of payment of pension
from the date of those schools getting 100% grant in aid. Such stand
taken by the Municipal Corporation is contrary to the provisions of
Pension Rules and the scheme and also contrary to the principles of law
laid down by this Court in case of Anuradha Jayant Gangakhedkar
(supra). The fact remains that the school in which the petitioner was
working on the date of her retirement was getting grant in aid.
13. Learned counsel submits that on 19th December 2013, the
review petition filed by the petitioner seeking recall of the said judgment
dated 26th July 2012 passed by the Division bench of this Court in the
said Writ Petition No.415 of 2012 came to be dismissed by the Division
bench comprising of S.J. Vazifdar, J. (as His Lordship then was) and
one of us (R.D. Dhanuka, J.). Learned counsel tendered a copy of the
review petition filed by the respondent no.1 to demonstrate the grounds
raised by the Municipal Corporation in the said review petition and
more particularly the ground that the period of 10 years should be
computed from the date of getting 100% grant in aid as qualifying service
for the purpose of getting pension. Learned counsel for the petitioner
ppn 41 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
submits that Special Leave Petition filed by the respondent no.1
Corporation against the order dated 19th December 2013 passed by this
Court also came to be dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the
judgment of this Court delivered on 21st June 2013 in case of
Smt.Vaishali J. Jadhav & Ors. Vs. Brihanmumbai Municipal
Corporation & Ors. in Writ Petition No.191 of 2013 and would submit
that after adverting to the judgment of the Division bench of this Court in
case of Anuradha Jayant Gangakhedkar (supra) in identical facts, this
Court directed the Municipal Corporation to compute the petitioner's
pension in that matter in accordance with the principles laid down in the
said judgment.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the
judgment of this Court delivered on 29th August 2020 in case of
Bajarangi Jagannath Yadav Vs. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai
& Ors. in Writ Petition No.1524 of 2012 and would submit that after
adverting to the judgment in case of Anuradha Jayant Gangakhedkar
(supra), this Court directed the Municipal Corporation to process the
petitioner's pension papers in that matter. He also placed reliance upon
the judgment of this Court delivered on 5 th August 2016 filed by Shital
Arvind Wadkar and ors. Vs. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation &
Ors. in Writ Petition No.2424 of 2014, judgment of this Court delivered
on 5th August 2016 in case of Neelam Nandkumar Borkar Vs.
Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation & Ors. in Writ Petition No.2423
of 2014, judgment of this Court delivered dated 5 th August 2016 in case
ppn 42 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
of Rashmi Ramchandra Dalvi Vs. Brihanmumbai Municipal
Corporation & Ors. in Writ Petition No.2417 of 2014 and the judgment
of this Court delivered on 5th August 2016 in case of Vidya Mohiniraj
Kulkarni Vs. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation & Ors. in Writ
Petition No.2419 of 2014 and would submit that Division bench of this
Court has taken identical view in that matter.
16. Learned counsel for the petitioner also invited our attention
to the order dated 27th January 2017 passed by the Division bench of this
Court in Review Petition (Writ Petition) (L) No.66 of 2016 in Writ
Petition No.424 of 2014 in case of Brihanmumbai Municipal
Corporation Vs. Sushma Suresh Pawar and Ors. and in batch of
petitions dismissing the review petition filed by the Municipal
Corporation. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to
various paragraphs of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent nos.1
& 2 Corporation notorised on 22nd April 2021 and would submit that all
these contentions raised by the respondent nos.1 and 2 opposing these
petitions were already dealt with in various orders referred to aforesaid
and have been rejected.
17. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Smt.Prem Devi and
Anr. Vs. Delhi Administration and Ors., 1989 Supp (2) SCC 330 and in
particular paragraph 4 and would submit that once the dispute in case of
Anuradha Jayant Gangakhedkar (supra) had been decided by this Court
and upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner being
identically placed, the Municipal Corporation could not have been treated
differently.
ppn 43 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
18. Mr.Dhond, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ
Petition No.3423 of 2019 submitted written arguments and adopted the
submissions made by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.1260 of 2018. Mr.
Punde, learned counsel for the petitioners in aforesaid 13 matters also
submitted a chart and would submit that the petitioners in these 13
matters also are entitled to get pension in view of the principles of law
laid down by this Court in case of Anuradha Jayant Gangakhedkar
(supra) and followed by various judgments delivered by this Court from
time to time. The fresh computation has to be made for payment on the
basis of last drawn salary on the date of retirement. He relied upon the
affidavit-in-reply filed by the Municipal Corporation in the Contempt
Petition filed by his clients. Learned counsel placed reliance on various
provisions and would submit that the petitioners had completed more
than 2 years after school started getting 100% grant in aid. He relied
upon the representations made by the petitioners.
19. Mr. Walia, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition
Nos. 1942 of 2019, 1829 of 2019 and 927 of 2019 submits that even at
the stage of considering pay fixation by the management, initial date of
appointment was considered. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case of Shreedharan Kallat vs. Union of India and
others, (1995) 4 SCC 207 and in particular paragraph (4) and would
submit that the issue raised by the BMC in the affidavit in reply and
across the bar are already decided and rejected in several judgments
already relied upon by the petitioners and could not once again be taken
up.
ppn 44 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
20. It is submitted that since these being the service matters, the
validity and interpretation of the pension rules, by this Court in series of
judgment have already achieved finality and is binding on the BMC. The
judgment delivered by this Court by co-ordinate Bench cannot be
disturbed by this Court by taking a different view as canvassed by the
BMC and more particularly when Special Leave Petition as well as
Review Petitions have been already dismissed against those judgments.
It is submitted by the learned counsel that the entire pension scheme is
borrowed from the pension rules.
21. Learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No.2210
of 2019 submits that while claiming pension under the pension scheme of
the BMC, the management contribution has to be returned to the BMC by
the petitioners. The BMC is trying to add the words in the said pension
scheme so as to deprive the petitioners from the legitimate claim. He
submits that the said judgment of this Court in case of Anuradha Jayant
Gangakhedkar (supra) has been already implemented. The BMC has
already paid the pension amount to the petitioners pursuant to the order
passed by this Court in case of Mrs.Anuradha Jayant Gangakhedkar vs.
Ajoy Mehta, Commissioner, Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation &
Ors. in the Contempt Petition No. 19 of 2017 pursuant to the order dated
9th January, 2019 unconditionally prior to 20th February, 2019.
22. Mr.Bapat, learned counsel for the petitioners in rejoinder
submits that the judgment of this Court in case of Anuradha Jayant
Gangakhedkar (supra) has attained finality in all respect and is binding
on the parties. This Court cannot re-open the said judgment on the basis
ppn 45 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
of the points which are canvassed by the respondents in this petition
which are already rejected in the earlier round of litigation directly or
impliedly. The BMC has already paid the pension amount due upto the
particular date in the contempt proceedings filed by some of the
petitioners. He submits that none of the judgments relied upon by the
learned senior counsel for the BMC would assist the case of the BMC.
23. Mr.Bukhari, learned senior counsel for the BMC on the other
hand would submit that Grant In Aid Code for Private Primary Schools of
Greater Mumbai was sanctioned by the State Government under section
62-C(3) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 and came into
force w.e.f. 1st April, 1964. He relied upon Rule 1 of the said Grant In
Aid Code which provides for the definition of 'recognition' of Private
Primary School. He also placed reliance on Rule 38 to 40 which provides
for 'registration' of Private Primary School for Grant In Aid purpose. He
states that those Private Primary Schools which are recognized under
Chapter 'I' and not registered under Chapter III for grant in aid are called
as 'Unaided Schools'. Private Primary Schools which are recognized
under Chapter I and also registered under Chapter III for grant in aid and
getting grant in aid are called as 'Aided Schools'. Rule 19 are applicable
to the employees of both aided and non-aided primary schools.
24. It is submitted that these Private Primary Aided and Non
Aided Schools are the employee or servants of management of the school
and therefore they are not the employees or servant of the Municipal
Corporation and therefore the rules, regulations, service condition of the
Corporation are not applicable to them. The benefits which the Municipal
ppn 46 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
employees/servants are receiving are not available to the employees of
the Private Primary Aided and unaided Schools. Once School is
registered for grant in aid under the Code, it receive grant in aid as
admissible from the Corporation and Corporation used to get 50%
reimbursement from the Government of Maharashtra.
25. It is submitted that as per Government Resolution dated 8 th
November, 2000 issued by the Government of Maharashtra, the schools
are given such grants in phase wise manner as per the terms and
conditions laid down by the State Government. The Corporation has
adopted the same policy from the year 2001 vide Education Committee
Resolution dated 1st January, 2002 and thereafter issued a Circular
SAS/Paysheet/OD/1109 dated 23rd January, 2002 in respect thereof to the
newly aided schools. The said circular provides for the procedure for
grant in aid to the school that began to receive phase wise grant i.e. First
year 20%, Second Year 40%, Third Year 60%, Fourth Year 80% and Fifth
Year 100%.
26. It is submitted that prior to the registration of school for
grant in aid, 100% expenses including salary of teachers and staffs were
borne by the school management and they were liable to pay retirement
benefits on retirement of their staff. Even after registration, when in the
first year 20% grant was given to the school, the remaining 80% expenses
including payment of the salary to the employees was required to be
borne by the school management and the ratio of the contribution was to
decrease as the grant would increase every year.
ppn 47 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
27. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that the State
Government vide its letter dated 13th January, 2004 communicated its
decision to the BMC that the State Government would not consider,
schools recognized and registered by the Corporation from 2001-2002
onwards for grant in aid reimbursement. Since 13th January, 2004, the
BMC has not received grant in aid reimbursement from the State
Government to the schools which are recognized by the Corporation after
2001-2002 and financial burden is on the BMC. He states that as on
today an amount of Rs.3980 crores is due from the State Government,
which includes reimbursement for primary education i.e. MCGM run
Municipal Primary School as well as Registered Private Primary School.
The Corporation is saddled with the said liability.
28. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that there was
no legal obligation or responsibility on the Corporation under the
Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act or under the Code to give the
pension to the Private Primary Aided Schools staff. No legal right vested
in the staff of the Private Primary Aided Schools to claim the benefits of
pension. He placed reliance on the judgment delivered by the learned
Single Judge of this Court in case of MCGM vs. Vrunda Vijaykumar
Kulkarni in Writ Petition No.306 of 2018 and would submit that the onus
was on the petitioners to prove that the petitioners who were working in a
Private Primary Aided School was under the ultimate control of BMC
over its affairs which the petitioners in this case has failed.
29. Learned senior counsel for the BMC invited our attention to
clause 5(1) of the Pension Scheme of 1997 framed for Private Primary
ppn 48 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
Aided School of Greater Mumbai and would submit that the unaided
schools are outside the purview of the benefits and the scheme. He relied
upon the definition of Private Primary Aided School in clause 5(iv) which
means Private Primary School recognized and registered (for receiving
Grant In Aid) under the Grant In Aid Code framed by the BMC. He
relied upon clause 5(ii) which provides that the scheme shall apply to the
full time 'confirmed' and 'approved' teaching and non teaching staff of
Private Primary Aided School of Greater Mumbai and whose salaries and
allowances are held admissible for grant in aid. He submits that the
qualifying service is calculated from the date of receipt of 100% grant
from the BMC. All four conditions prescribed in clause 5(f) are required
to be fulfilled for the applicability of the pension scheme to staff of the
Private Primary Aided Schools which are absent in this case.
30. Learned senior counsel placed reliance on clause 5(xi) of the
Pension Scheme dated 31st October, 1997 and would submit that the said
clause clearly refers to the Private Primary Aided School in Greater
Mumbai which shall be taken into account for the purposes of computing
the length of qualifying service for the pension.
31. Learned senior counsel placed reliance on clause 8(a)(ii)
which provides for procedure for calculation of pension, gratuity and
family pension to the approved staff of the Private Primary Aided Schools
in Greater Mumbai and would submit that teaching and non teaching
staffs of the Private Primary Aided School receiving 100% grant in aid
are not entitled for pension if they have not completed 10 years of
qualifying service in a private primary 100% aided school. He submits
ppn 49 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
that the services rendered by these employees in the unaided school
cannot be taken into consideration as it is outside the purview of the
pension scheme and contrary to clause 5(xi) of the pension scheme. The
school became aided school only when such Private Primary Aided
School gets 100% grant in aid and only then the employee's salaries and
allowances are held admissible for grant in aid and claim regularly by the
school from BMC. The employees/staff of such aided schools will be
eligible for pension under this pension scheme provided employee has
put in minimum 10 years qualifying services in aided school. Qualifying
service is the basic condition in order to eligible for the pension.
32. Learned senior counsel placed reliance on the circular dated
20th October, 2006 issued by the BMC and would submit that the services
rendered in the Private Primary Aided School will be held admissible for
pension and pensionary benefits. He submits that under clause 5(iii),
unless in any case it be otherwise distinctly provided for by or under this
scheme, the provisions of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Pension Rules,
1953, except sections VII, X, XI, XIII and XIV as amended from time to
time will be applicable to the teaching and non teaching staff of Private
Primary Aided Schools. It is submitted that the qualifying service of Rule
5(1)(f) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Pension Rule 1953 means
as a service rendered by an employee on permanent post.
33. Learned senior counsel placed reliance on clause (xii) of the
pension scheme and would submit that after taking into consideration
previous service rendered by the teacher in the Private Primary Aided
School and after the respective Private Primary Aided Schools will
ppn 50 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
submit the certificate of their service, the employees/staff would receive
pension benefits. He relied upon clause 7 of the Pension Scheme.
34. Insofar as the judgment of this Court in case of Anuradha
Jayant Gangakhedkar (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioners is concerned, it is submitted by the learned senior counsel that
this Court in the said judgment did not consider various clauses of
pension scheme as referred in the earlier part of this judgment which have
far reaching effect adversely and substantially, prejudicially affecting the
interest of the BMC and heavy financial implication on it. He submits
that as a result of this judgment in case of Anuradha Jayant
Gangakhedkar (supra) even a teacher/staff work for single day in the
aided school would be entitled to pension and other benefits for the entire
service rendered in unaided school. Many teachers/staff working in the
different Private Primary Aided School who have not completed
qualifying service of 10 years in the aided school and are claiming the
pension benefits including Death Cum Retirement Gratuity, commutation
of pension which was not the object and ambit of the pension scheme.
35. It is submitted that the said scheme never intended to
provide such benefits of pension and other benefits for the period of
services rendered when the school was unaided. It is submitted by the
learned senior counsel that the Division Bench of this Court in the said
judgment would consider the effect of clause 5(xi) of the Pension
Scheme, which specifically provided that in computing the length of
qualifying services for pension under this scheme, all previous service
whether temporary, officiating or permanent either in one or more than
ppn 51 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
one private primary aided schools in Greater Mumbai shall alone be taken
into account. He submits that this Court in the said judgment also did not
consider clause 5(xii) which provided that the previous services in aided
school, if any, after obtaining the relevant services certificates issued by
the respective Private Primary Aided Schools will be considered for grant
of pension.
36. It is submitted that though the Division Bench of this Court
referred to clause 8(a)(ii) of the Pension Scheme which provides that
atleast 10 years of qualifying service is the basic requirement for
pensionary benefits, did not deal with or consider the said clause. If this
Court would have considered the said clauses in its right perspective, it
would not have come to the said incorrect conclusion, which resulted into
miscarriage of justice and serious financial implication on the
Corporation, which was never intended to be taken while framing the
Pension Scheme. This Court also ignored clause (7) of the Pension
Scheme which provides that for confirmation of admissibility, eligibility,
qualifying service and pensionable pay last drawn, it is necessary to
verify all the records of an aided ex school employees.
37. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that this Court
in the said judgment did not consider that the applicability of the schemes
and eligibility are two different things. He submits that all the provisions
of the Pension Scheme have to be read in the context as a whole. The
particular provision of the Scheme should be construed with reference to
other provisions of the same scheme so as to construe the pension scheme
as a whole. The Court has to avoid any interpretation which would
ppn 52 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
involve any conflict with other provisions of the same scheme and in no
case to borrow the provisions of other rules, i.e. BMC Pension Rules,
1953.
38. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that the
provisions of the pension scheme are erroneously construed as a whole.
There is no scope to ignore qualifying service as defined and stipulated in
clause 5(xi) read with clause 8 of the Pension Scheme. He submitted that
the entire scheme referred to 'aided school' and 'not unaided school'
otherwise the scheme would have provided that the initial date of
appointment should be considered for pension irrespective of whether the
school is aided or unaided. The word 'aided' is consistently used in the
pension scheme to be excluded unaided Private Primary School. The
word 'approved' found in the said pension scheme has significance. He
relied upon definition of 'approved' Rule 5(4)(e) of the Pension Scheme.
He submits that six employees only were granted approval under the
signature of the Education Officer, auditors and the management of the
school.
39. Learned senior counsel for the BMC placed reliance on the
order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 22 nd March, 2018
filed by Ms.Jaywanti Anant Dhanu vs. The Education Officer, R-South
Ward & Ors. in Writ Petition No.3050 of 2015. He submits that after
considering the said judgment of another Division Bench in case of
Anuradha Jayant Gangakhedkar (supra) as well as circular dated 31 st
October, 1997 laying down pension scheme for the Private Primary Aided
Schools and the Pension Rules of 1953 as applicable to the employees of
ppn 53 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
Municipal Corporation of Greater, the Division Bench of this Court
though admitted the said writ petition, did not grant any interim relief to
the petitioner. He submits that the said writ petition is pending till date
without granting any interim relief to the petitioner therein.
40. Insofar as the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the
petitioners on the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissing
the Special Leave Petition against the order of this Court in case of
Anuradha Jayant Gangakhedkar (supra) is concerned, it is submitted
that the said order without giving any reasons and dismissed the petition
in limine would not be a precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution
of India. He submits that the order passed by the Division Bench of this
Court dismissing the review petition filed by the BMC and the order
passed by Division Bench in other matters have simply relied upon the
judgment in case of Anuradha Jayant Gangakhedkar (supra). He
submits that the Special Leave Petition against the common order dated
27th January, 2017 passed in all review petitions is pending for hearing
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
41. Learned senior counsel relied upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sudhir Kumar Kansal vs. Allahabad
Bank, 2011 (3) SCC 486 and would submit that the Court has to
administer law as they find it, however, inconvenient it may be and
cannot pass an order based on sympathy which cannot override the rules
and regulations.
42. Learned senior counsel tendered a separate compilation of
the judgments. Learned senior counsel placed reliance on the judgment
ppn 54 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab
and another, (2010) 15 SCC 118 and in particular paragraph (18) and
would submit that the Judge should always be open to correct its mistake.
He submits that this Division Bench after considering the provisions of
the pension scheme as pointed out by the BMC shall correct the mistake
committed by this Court in case of Anuradha Jayant Gangakhedkar
(supra) and shall refer the issues to a larger Bench for re-consideration.
43. Learned senior counsel placed reliance on the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Odisha and others vs.
Manju Naik, 2019 SCC OnLine 1548 and in case of Union of India &
Anr. vs. Bashirbhai R.Khiliji, (2007) 6 SCC 16 in support of his
submission on the issue of qualifying service. He also placed reliance on
the following judgments :-
(i) Judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Fuljit Kaur Vs. State
of Punjab and Ors. delivered on 3rd June 2010 in Civil Appeal
No.5292 of 2004 and other connected matters (paragraph 7);
(ii) Judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd. Vs. Raj Kumari (Smt.) and Ors., (2007) 12 SCC 768;
(iii) Judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Union of India &
Ors.Vs.Shri R.C. Jain & Ors. (1981) 2 SCC 308;
(iv) Judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Dental Council of India
and Anr. Vs. Hari Prakash & Ors., (2001) 8 SCC 61;
(v) Judgment of Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors.
Vs. Dev Dutt Kaushal & Ors., 1995 Supp (4) SCC 748.;
ppn 55 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
REASONS AND CONCLUSIONS :-
44. The Relevant provisions of the Pension Scheme and the
Circular dated 31st October 1997 issued by the Municipal Corporation
relied upon by the parties are extracted as under :-
2. (1) Except where it is otherwise expressed or implied and subject
to the provisions of Sub Rule (2) of this rule, these rules shall apply
to all Municipal servants who hold a lien on a permanent post or
would hold a lien on such a post had their lien not been suspended
under the Municipal Service Regulations. (Effect is given from 31-
1-2000).
5. (1) Unless there be any thing repugnant in the subject or context,
the terms defined in this rule are used in the rules in the sense here
explained :-
(a) 'Competent authority' means-
(i) The Standing Committee in respect of Municipal servants, the
power of appointing whom vests in the Standing Committee or the
Corporation; and
(ii) The Municipal Commissioner for Greater Mumbai in respect of
all other Municipal servants.
(b) & (c) ........
(d) 'Pension' includes gratuity. Except where the term 'pension' is
used in contra-distinction to 'death-cum-retirement gratuity',
'pension' includes 'death-cum-retirement gratuity' also.
(e) Pensionable Pay means the average pay earned by a Municipal
employee during the last 10 months of service. For the purpose of
this definition the term 'Pay' means and includes the amount drawn
monthly by Municipal employee as :-
(i) The basic pay which has been sanctioned for a post held by a
Municipal employee substantively or in an officiating capacity or
to which he is entitled by reason of his position in the cadre.
(f) 'Qualifying service' means and includes--
(i) duty performed in a permanent post,
(ii) duty performed in an officiating or temporary capacity or as a
ppn 56 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
probationer if followed by confirmation in a permanent post,
(iii) duty performed in an officiating or temporary capacity while
holding a lien or a suspended lien on a permanent post,
(iv) duty performed in foreign service in respect of which a
contribution towards pension has been paid or remitted under the
Municipal Service Regulations,
(v) any period of suspension if it is subsequently treated as duty or
leave.
(vi) duty performed in an Establishment paid at daily-rates of
wages, if the servant had immediately preceding such duty on daily
wages, held a permanent post in a time-scale of pay substantively.
(This clause will be treated as in existence from the very
beginning).
(vi)(a) 50% of continuous service performed in an establishment
paid at daily rates of wages immediately followed by continuous
service in time scale, provided a Municipal servant is eligible to be
governed by these rules, Effected from 1st October 1982.
(vii) all leave including extraordinary leave during the period of
continuous service.
(viii) vacation taken by a Municipal servant in vacation
department.
Provisions of Circular dated 31st October 1997 :-
5. The sanctioned pension scheme applicable to the teaching
and the non-teaching staff of the private primary aided schools
in Greater Mumbai is as under : -
Pension Scheme for Teaching and Non-Teaching Staff of Private
Primary Aided Schools in Greater Mumbai
(i) ........
(ii) This scheme shall apply to full time confirmed and approved
teaching and non-teaching staff of private primary aided schools of
Greater Mumbai whose salaries and allowances are held
admissible for Grant-in-aid and claimed regularly by the school
from the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and subject
to the condition that each such Private Primary Aided School
has obtained exemption under Section 16(2) of the Employees
Provident Funds & Misc. Provisions Act, 1952.
(iii) Unless in any case it be otherwise distinctly provided for by
or under this scheme, the provisions of Mumbai Municipal
ppn 57 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
Corporation Pension Rules, 1953, except Sections VII, X, XI,
XIII and XIV, as amended from time to time will be applicable to
the teaching and non-teaching staff of private primary aided
schools.
(iv) For the purpose of this scheme :-
(a) Private Primary Aided School means a private primary
school recognised and registered under the Grant-in-aid Code
framed by the Mumbai Municipal Corporation and approved by
the State Government and receiving Grant-in-aid from the
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai.
(b) Private Primary Recognised School means a private primary
school recognised under the Grant-in-aid Code but receiving
Grant-in-aid from the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai.
(c) Teaching staff means and includes approved full-time Read
Teacher, Dy. Head Teacher, Teacher and Special Teacher working
in Private Primary Aided School in Greater Mumbai.
(d) Non-teaching staff means and includes approved full time
Clerks, Peons and other IV class menial servants working in
Private Primary Aided School in Greater Mumbai.
(e) Approved staff means the staff of Private Primary School
approved by the Education Department of the Municipal
Corporation of Greater Mumbai for the purpose of sanctioning
Grant-in-aid to the school
(f) .....
(i) & (ii) ....
(g) ....
(h) Pensionable Pay means average pay as defined under Rule
5(1)(e) of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Pensions Rules.
(i) .....
(j) All other terms as defined under Mumbai Municipal
ppn 58 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
Corporation Pension Rules shall apply to this scheme mutatis
mutandis.
(v) to (x) ....
(xi) In computing the length of qualifying service for
pension under this scheme, all previous service whether temporary,
officiating or permanent either in one or more than one Private
Primary Aided Schools in Greater Mumbai shall along be taken
into account, subject to general condition that the period of each
break during such service does not exceed 12 months and total
period of six breaks does not exceed two years. Breaks in service
on account of any of the reasons listed below not exceeding six
number should not be threaten as interruption entailing forfeiture
of past service for this purpose.
(a) Break in service on account of resignation of member of
approved teaching and non-teaching staff of private primary
aided school provided it is followed by his taking up service in any
other Private Primary Aided School and is not intervened by his
taking employment in any other capacity. Out of maximum
number of six breaks that can be condoned, not more than three
breaks will however be condoned on account of such resignation.
(b) Termination of service due to no fault of member of approved
staff of Private Primary Aided School or on account of
circumstances beyond the control of the member of approved staff.
If the services of such member have been terminated on
disciplinary grounds after following the prescribed procedure,
such break in service shall not be condoned and the services
rendered by such staff member in the school from which services
are so terminated on disciplinary grounds will not be considered
for pensionary benefits.
(xii) The pension claim of the members of the approved staff
of Private Primary Aided School entitled to pension, gratuity etc.
under this scheme will be prepared, in form prescribed by the
Municipal Corporation from time to time, by the Private Primary
Aided School from which such member will retire taking into
consideration the period of all previous services if any, after
obtaining the relevant services certificates issued by the respective
private primary aided schools of Greater Mumbai and submitted
ppn 59 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
to Education Department of the Municipal Corporation after
calculating and recommending pensionary benefits admissible
under this scheme. On receipts of such pension claims the
Education Department will verify the services, pay, etc, particulars
and sanction the pensionary benefits as admissible under the
scheme subject to certification of Chief Accountant and send the
pension claim papers of Chief Accountant for verification,
certification and payment of pensionary benefits to the
pensioners.
6. & 7. .......
8. Procedure for calculation of pension, gratuity and family
pension to the approved staff of the private primary aided schools
in Greater Mumbai :-
(a) Amount of Pension :-
(i) In case of the employees working in the private primary aided
schools retiring in accordance with the provisions of BMC Pension
Rules (1953) after completing a qualifying service of not less
than 33 years, the amount of basic pension shall be at 50% of
the pensionable pay subject to the minimum of Rs.375/- +
Admissible Dearness Relief p.m. and the maximum of Rs.4,000/-
+ Admissible Dearness Relief p.m.
(ii) In case of the employees working in the private primary
aided schools retiring in accordance with the provisions of BMC
Pension Rules (1953), who have rendered completing a qualifying
service of10 years or more, but less than 33 years, the amount of
pension will be in such proportion of the maximum pension
admissible under clause (I) above on the qualifying service
rendered by them will bear to the qualifying service of 33 years
subject to the minimum of Rs.375/- + Admissible Dearness
Relief per month and the maximum of Rs.4,000/- + Admissible
Dearness Relief p.m.
45. It is not in dispute that the BMC had issued a circular for
pension scheme dated 31st October, 1997 for Private Primary Aided
School of Greater Mumbai. The Municipal Corporation had passed a
ppn 60 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
resolution no.103 dated 4th September, 1983 expressing its opinion that
the staff of Private Primary Aided School be given the benefits of the
pension scheme. It is not in dispute that all the schemes which are
subject matter of these petitions are getting grant in aid from the BMC to
the extent of 100%. The said pension scheme for Private Primary Aided
School for Greater Mumbai was brought into effect from 1st April, 1979.
46. The said pensionary benefits were required to be approved
staff (teaching and non-teaching) of the Private Primary Aided Schools in
Greater Mumbai pursuant to the resolution dated 22nd March, 1990 passed
by the Education Committee dated 7th May, 1990 on par with the State
Government Resolution dated 14th February, 1980. Each of the petitioner
was employed in the Private Primary Aided School which is recognized
and registered under the grant in aid and has been receiving grant from
the BMC. The petitioners are approved full time teachers. The BMC
issued circular/guidelines given to the school to submit pension/family
papers, its accompaniments etc. of the retired municipal employees.
47. A perusal of the record indicates that Mrs.Anuradha
Gangakhedkar who was a similarly situated teacher was denied pension
by the BMC had filed a writ petition bearing no. 415 of 2012 in this
Court. The BMC had opposed the said writ petition on various grounds
including the ground that after the said school became fully grant in aid in
2005, the concerned teacher was put in qualifying service thereafter. The
Division Bench of this Court of which one of us (R.D.Dhanuka, J.) was a
member allowed the said writ petition bearing no. 415 of 2012 dated 26 th
July, 2012 and directed the BMC to release the pension benefits to the
ppn 61 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
petitioners therein. This Court considered the fact that at the time of her
appointment, the school which was conducted by the respondent no.3
therein could not receive any grant in aid from the Municipal
Corporation. In the year 2001, the school received 20% grant in aid
which was progressively increased in a similar proportion so that by 2005
the school was in receipt of full grant in aid. In that case, the petitioner
had retired on 30th June, 2011. This Court considered the said pension
scheme notified by the circular dated 31st October, 1997 by the BMC.
48. The Municipal Corporation had contended that the
qualifying service must be construed to be service rendered in an aided
school and that the service which has been rendered by an employee
before the school came in receipt of grant-in-aid would have to be
excluded for computing qualifying service. It was also contended by the
BMC that under Rule 48 of the Pension Rules Municipal employee
retiring on superannuation before completing qualifying service of ten
years is only entitled to service gratuity of half month's pay for each
completed six monthly period of qualifying service.
49. This Court in the said judgment held that the pension scheme
which had been framed by the BMC applies to the full time confirmed
and approved teaching and non-teaching staff of private primary aided
schools of Greater Mumbai whose salaries and allowances are held
admissible for grant-in-aid and claimed regularly by the School from the
Municipal Corporation subject to the condition that the School has
obtained an exemption under Section 16(2) of the Employees Provident
Fund Act, 1952. This Court also construed the definition of "Private
Primary School" and also Clause 8 of the Scheme and held that the test
ppn 62 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
which must be applied is as to whether an employee was a full time
confirmed and approved member of the teaching or non-teaching staff of
a private primary aided school on the date of her retirement. If that test is
satisfied, the Pension Scheme is made applicable by virtue of the
provisions of clause 5(ii).
50. It is held that there is no warrant in the Pension Scheme or
the Pension Rules to exclude while computing qualifying service, the
service which is rendered by an employee before a school came to be in
receipt of grant-in-aid. So long as the school was in receipt of grant-in-aid
on the date on which an employee retired from service upon attaining the
age of superannuation, the application of the Pension Scheme would be
attracted. The Petitioner was an employee of a private primary aided
school on the date of retirement and was hence eligible. This Court in the
said judgment held that the BMC was required to release pensionary
benefits to the petitioner therein.
51. On 21st June, 2013, the Division Bench of this Court in case
of Smt.Vaishali J.Jadhav & Ors. (supra) followed the judgment of this
Court in case of Anuradha Jayant Gangakhedkar (supra) and allowed
the payment of pension to the petitioners therein. This Court in another
judgment dated 29th August, 2013 in case of Bajarangi Jagannath
Yadav (supra) followed the judgment of this Court in case of Anuradha
Jayant Gangakhedkar (supra) and granted the relief for payment of
pension to the petitioners therein.
52. The Division Bench of this Court followed the said
judgment of Anuradha Jayant Gangakhedkar (supra) in the judgment
ppn 63 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
delivered on 5th August, 2016, in case of Shital Arvind Wadkar and ors.
(supra), in case of Neelam Nandkumar Borkar (supra), in case of
Rashmi Ramchandra Dalvi (supra), in case of Vidya Mohiniraj
Kulkarni (supra) and allowed the payment of pension in favour of the
petitioners. The BMC filed various review petitions in large number of
writ petitions filed by the employees.
53. It was brought to the notice of this Court in the said review
petition that the Special Leave Petition filed by the BMC against the
judgment of this Court in case of Anuradha Jayant Gangakhedkar
(supra) was dismissed on 4th July, 2014. This Court in the said judgment
noticed that the BMC had raised an issue in the review petition filed in
case of Anuradha Jayant Gangakhedkar (supra) that the said institution
in which the said Anuradha Jayant Gangakhedkar was employee was not
fully receiving the grant in aid but was receiving partial grant in aid. The
said ground was raised in case of Anuradha Jayant Gangakhedkar
(supra) but the said review petition filed by the BMC also suffered by
the Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 19 th December, 2013.
This Court also noticed that it was the case of the BMC that while
deciding the writ petition, this Court had not taken into consideration the
effect of the circular dated 31st October, 1997 and held that the said
submission was factually incorrect. The said circular was also considered
by the Division Bench of this Court while deciding the case of the
Anuradha Jayant Gangakhedkar (supra). After recording the reasons in
detail, this Court dismissed various review petitions filed by the BMC
arising out of various orders passed by this Court.
ppn 64 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
54. Various Division Benches of this Court have followed the
said judgment of this Court in case of Anuradha Jayant Gangakhedkar
(supra) consistently and have allowed the relief of payment of pension in
favour of large number of employees rejecting the contentions raised by
the BMC. It is not in dispute that all those orders have been thereafter
implemented by the BMC by releasing the payment dues upto the
particular period computed on the basis of the last drawn salary by those
petitioners.
55. Learned senior counsel for the Corporation could not dispute
that various contentions raised by the Municipal Corporation in those writ
petitions are already rejected by this Court and has attained finality.
56. Insofar as the order dated 22nd March, 2018 passed by the
Division Bench of this Court in case of Ms.Jaywanti Anant Dhanu
(supra) relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the BMC is
concerned, a perusal of the said order indicates that this Court admitted
the said writ petition after adverting to the judgment of this Court in case
of Anuradha Jayant Gangakhedkar (supra) after recording the
submissions made by both the parties. The said order passed by this
Court admitting the said writ petition and not granting interim relief
would not advance the case of the BMC.
57. The said Mrs.Anuradha Jayant Gangakhedkar had filed a
contempt petition bearing no. 19 of 2017 in this Court alleging the wilful
disobedience on the part of the BMC to release the pensionary benefits of
the petitioners in violation of the judgment of the Division Bench of this
ppn 65 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
court in her case. This Court passed an order on 9 th January, 2019 after
considering the reply filed by the BMC and observed that the action on
the part of the BMC was not in consonance with the legal position. The
petitioner having retired on 30th June, 2011, the pension had to be worked
out on the basis of the last drawn salary and not on the basis of the salary
paid to the petitioner in the year 1995.
58. This Court accordingly directed the BMC to work out the
pension payable to the petitioner therein on the basis of the last drawn
salary and the arrears to which the petitioner would be entitled, and make
payment of the same to the petitioner within the time prescribed in the
said order. This Court also directed the Municipal Commissioner to
conduct an enquiry as to how such an erroneous fixation of pension was
done by an officer of the Corporation and also to take action against such
person who has committed such gross erroneous act.
59. In the said contempt petition, the said Anuradha Jayant
Gangakhedkar (supra) referred to the order passed by this Court in other
contempt petitions filed by the other employees observing the
misconception in the mind of the BMC and not complying with the order
passed by this Court. In the said contempt petition, the BMC filed an
affidavit dated 6th February, 2019 stating that the previous pension
scheme of the said Anuradha Jayant Gangakhedkar was sanctioned taking
into account her service from 20% grant i.e. from the date 1 st June, 2001.
The teaching and non-teaching employees of Private Primary Aided
Schools availed off the benefits of pension and pensionary benefits vide
circular no.SAS/Pension/667 dated 31st October, 1997.
ppn 66 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
60. It was stated that the said Mrs.Anuradha Jayant
Gangakhedkar was appointed as assistant teacher by the school
management of [email protected] Babasaheb Deshpande Primary School at Sion,
Mumbai on 7th June, 1982. The said school granted first recruitment on
23rd April, 1971 and was granted grant in aid on 1st February, 2002 w.e.f.
1st June, 2001, i.e. First year 20%, Second Year 40%, Third Year 60%,
Fourth Year 80% and Fifth Year 100% on 1st April, 2005. The petitioner
in that case had superannuated on 30 th June, 2011. The BMC accordingly
granted benefits to the said Mrs.Anuradha Jayant Gangakhedkar as per
last pay drawn taking into account the entire service from the date of
appointment till the date of superannuation. We are informed that similar
pension reliefs have been granted by the BMC to their other employees.
61. It is clear beyond reasonable doubt that the BMC had
implemented the judgment of this Court in case of Anuradha Jayant
Gangakhedkar (supra) which was followed in several other matters by
taking into account her entire service on the date of initial appointment
till the date of superannuation. The BMC thus cannot be allowed to now
canvass the issues raised in the affidavit in reply and also across the bar
for taking different view in the matter or to refer the issues to a larger
Bench. The issue raised by the BMC have attained finality and cannot be
referred to the larger Bench. Be that as it may, we do not propose to take
any different view in the matter.
62. The judgment of this Court in case of Anuradha Jayant
Gangakhedkar (supra) was on interpretation of the pension scheme and
the circular pension scheme and after interpreting those provisions, had
ppn 67 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
granted relief for payment of pension in favour of the said Mrs. Anuradha
Jayant Gangakhedkar. In our view, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in case of Gian Singh (supra) thus would not assist the case of the
petitioners.
63. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Shreedharan Kallat
(supra) has clearly held that the issues raised by the petitioner therein
were already settled by the judgment of the High Court and the Tribunal
committed act of grave impropriety in attempting to re-open it. It is held
that it could not once again take up those very pleas which were rejected
by the High Court. Such unwarranted stand by public authorities results
in protracted litigation involving wastage of money and time. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that in the service matters where
validity or interpretation of rule is concerned, any order that would be
passed by the Courts which achieves finality is binding on the
department. If the Court is satisfied that any employee has been
prejudiced or his right under Article 14 has been violated, it may interfere
in his favour. But the department is precluded from challenging the
interpretation given by the Court. The Tribunal could not have passed an
order which resulted in disturbing the finality about interpretation of rule
specially when the Special Leave Petition had been dismissed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court.
64. In our view, the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case of Shreedharan Kallat(supra) applies to the facts
of this case. The issue raised by the BMC have been already dealt with
and are rejected by the judgment referred to aforesaid specifically or
ppn 68 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
impliedly. The BMC has not acted bonafide and has withheld legitimate
claim of pension made by the petitioners on unsustainable grounds all
throughout and even by opposing these petitions.
65. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Dr. Shah Faesal
and Ors. v/s. Union of India and Anr., (2020) 4 SCC 1 has held that
jurisprudence of the Supreme Court has shown that usually the Courts do
not overrule the established precedents unless there is a social,
constitutional or economic change mandating such a development. The
numbers themselves speak of restraint and the value of the Supreme
Court attaches to the doctrine of precedent. The Supreme Court regards
the use of precedent as indispensable bedrock upon which the Supreme
Court renders justice. The use of such precedents, to some extent, creates
certainty upon which individuals can rely and conduct their affairs. It also
creates a basis for the development of the rule of law. Precedent plays
an important role in promoting stability and even-handedness. The
doctrines of precedents and stare decisis are the core values of our legal
system. They form the tools which further the goal of certainty, stability
and continuity in our legal system. In our view, the principles of law
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Dr. Shah Faesal
and Ors. (supra) apply to the facts of this case.
66. The principles of law laid down by this Court in case of
Anuradha Jayant Gangakhedkar (supra) followed in several judgments
of this Court have attained finality. Even if the view taken by this Court
in case of Anuradha Jayant Gangakhedkar (supra) has any financial
hardship to the Municipal Corporation as sought to be urged, the same
ppn 69 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
cannot be a ground for taking a different view in the matter. No second
look is required by this Court to the principles of law already laid down
in those judgments. In our view, the Municipal Corporation is seeking
second review of the said judgment in case of Anuradha Jayant
Gangakhedkar (supra) directly or indirectly which is not permissible in
law. What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly.
67. Various provisions of Pension Scheme relied upon by the
BMC are already dealt with in various judgments.
68. We do not propose to take a different view in the matter also
in view of the fact that the Municipal Corporation has already released
the substantial amount by following principles of law laid down by this
Court in case of Anuradha Jayant Gangakhedkar (supra) and
subsequent judgments following the said judgment. In our view, the
reasons recorded by this Court in the earlier paragraph of this judgment
would apply to all the petitions which were heard and are being disposed
of by this order.
69. We accordingly pass the following order :-
(i) Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation-the respondent no.1 is
directed to release the pension of the petitioners along with arrears with
interest @ 10% p.a. from the due date till the date of payment on the
basis of last drawn salary within four weeks from today.
(ii) All the writ petitions are allowed in aforesaid terms. Rule is made
absolute accordingly.
ppn 70 wp.1260.18& ors. (j).doc
(iii) Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation is directed to pay costs of
Rs.25,000/- to each of the petitioners within two weeks from today.
(iv) In view of disposal of the said writ petitions, interim applications
pending, if any, do not survive and the same are disposed of.
R.N. LADDHA, J. R.D. DHANUKA, J.
