Smita Rajendra Hiray vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2207 Bom

R.V.Patil                                                       16.WP. 8909.2016 AS.odt


                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                           WRIT PETITION NO. 8909 OF 2016

Smita Rajendra Hiray                                    ...Petitioner
            vs.
The State of Maharashtra Through
The Principal Secretary & Ors.                          ...Respondents
                                          ......
Mr. Yashodeep Deshmukh a/w Ms Vaidehi Deshmukh, Ms Sonali pawar &
Ms Kinjal Kanani i.b Mr. Shailesh D. Chavan for the Petitioner.
Mr. S. B. Kalel, AGP for the State.
Mr. Rui Rodrigues for Respondent No. 4.
Ms Rajeshwari Patil i/b Mr. Shriniwas Patwardhan for Respondent No. 6.

                                       CORAM : S.C. GUPTE AND
                                               SURENDRA P. TAVADE, JJ.

                                       DATE     : 3 FEBRUARY 2021

P.C. :

.           Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner, learned AGP for the

Respondent-State, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 4 and learned Counsel for Respondent No. 6.

2. Rule. Rule taken up for hearing forthwith, by consent of Counsel.

3. The Petitioner is a retired 'Assistant Professor' having put in service with Respondent No. 6- College from 13 September 1993 till her retirement on 31 August 2013. Before that, she worked as an 'Assistant Teacher' on full time aided basis in a secondary school under the same management from 26 July 1978 to 12 September 1993 as a Trained Graduate Teacher. She was appointed in the junior college of the same management, i.e Respondent No. 6, after following due procedure, that is to say, a proper screening by the University Selection Committee as per the applicable statute. Approval to the Petitioner's appointment was granted by

R.V.Patil 16.WP. 8909.2016 AS.odt

Respondent No. 5 - University subject to her clearance of NET/SET qualifcation. Since the Petitioner could not clear NET/SET, the approval was being treated as temporary ad-hoc approval. After she put in about 20 years of service from 1993 to 2013 without any break, the Petitioner superannuated from the services of the Petitioner, including her earlier service rendered in the secondary school of the same management. When her pension papers were submitted to the Joint Director of Education, Pune region for grant of pension and gratuity, they were returned to Respondent No. 6-College without approval, purportedly on the ground that the Petitioner had not put in the minimum required pensionable service of 20 years. The Petitioner was informed that though her total service was of around 33 years in a grant-in-aid post, her service rendered with Respondent No. 6- College from 13 September 1993 to 31 August 2013 did not qualify as 'pensionable service' for non-fulfllment of NET/SET qualifcation prescribed by the UGC notifcation of 19 September 1991. It was claimed that Government Resolution dated 27 June 2013, which inter alia provides for non-application of UGC notifcation 19 September 1991 to teachers appointed prior to 23 October 1992, subject to conditions prescribed therein, did not cover her case, since her appointment was after 23 October 1992; by reason of the original UGC notifcation of 19 September 1991, her service was not entitled to be treated as 'pensionable service' for not having obtained NET/SET qualifcation; her service was liable to be treated as a temporary ad-hoc service.

4. This Court, in Maruti Dattatraya Patil V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 1, considered the G.R. of 27 June 2013. The G.R. inter alia deals with appointments between 23 October 1992 till 3 April 2000. It exempts lecturers, who were appointment between 23 October 1992 to 3 April 2000 and who did not possess NET/SET qualifcation, subject to the only requirement that their appointments were made after following due selection

1 Writ Petition No. 13166 of 2017, decided on 3.10.2018.

R.V.Patil 16.WP. 8909.2016 AS.odt

process and were approved by the university and proposals for grant of approval were submitted in their case by the concerned university to the University Grant Commission. The Court held that such teachers were entitled to the beneft of the GR, even if they had superannuated before the date of the GR. This Judgment was carried by the Respondent-State before the Supreme Court by way of an SLP. The SLP was dismissed by the Supreme Court.

5. The case of the Petitioner herein is clearly covered by the Judgment of Maruti Dattatraya Patil. As in that case, even here the Petitioner had been duly appointed; the appointment was on 13 September 1993, that is to say, between 23 October 1992 to 3 April 2000, it was made after following due selection process; the appointment was approved by Respondent No. 5- University; and her name was submitted for grant of approval to the University Grant Commission. In the premises, the Petitioner cannot be denied pensionary benefts out of her service with Respondent No. 6- College.

6. Rule is, accordingly, made absolute and the Petition is allowed by directing the Respondents to treat the Petitioner's service between 13 September 1993 to 31 August 2013 with Respondent No. 6- College as eligible for pension, and sanction and release her pension and other terminal benefts including arrears accordingly. The Respondent-State is directed to issue orders and release the Petitioner's pension and other terminal benefts, including arrears, in accordance with her entitlement in law, within a period of three months from today.

7. The petition is disposed of accordingly.

(SURENDRA P. TAVADE, J)                                          (S.C. GUPTE, J.)