Bombay High Court
Suklal Bansilal Marathe vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 5 October, 2021
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala, R. N. Laddha
1 wp 8724.21
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 8724 OF 2021
Suklal Bansilal Marathe .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri R. R. Deshpande, Advocate h/f Ms. Priyanka R. Deshpande,
Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri S. P. Tiwari, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
The Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are served.
Shri Sanjay Trikolikar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 6 -
absent.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND
R. N. LADDHA, JJ.
DATE : 05TH OCTOBER, 2021.
FINAL ORDER :
. Mr. Deshpande, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor
on 01st December, 1992. He was possessing qualification of M.A.
English B+. The approval is also granted to the appointment of
the petitioner. The petitioner was selected by duly constituted
selection committee of the university. The approval is granted to
the services of the petitioner. The petitioner on attaining age of
superannuation retired on or about 31st May, 2014.
2. The learned Advocate submits that the pension proposal is
rejected on the ground that the petitioner does not possess NET/
2 wp 8724.21
SET qualification. At the relevant time the exemption was
granted from possessing NET/SET qualification. The petitioner
possesses the required qualification. On the date of appointment
the petitioner was possessing the post graduate degree.
3. The learned Assistant Government Pleader supports the
order passed by the Joint Director, Higher Education and
submits that as the petitioner was not possessing requisite
qualification he was not entitled for pension. Approval was also
granted to him subject to clearing the NET/CET qualification.
The learned A. G. P. relies upon the Government Resolution
dated 27.06.2013 and submits that in view of the said
Government Resolution also the petitioner would not be entitled
for old pension scheme and would be governed by the DCPS.
4. We have considered the submissions canvassed by the
learned Advocates for the parties.
5. The Government Resolution dated 27.06.2013 was subject
matter of consideration before the Principal Seat at Bombay in
Writ Petition No. 13166 of 2017 decided on 03.10.2018. In the
said writ petition, the petitioner therein was not possessing NET/
SET qualification and was appointed in the year 1998. He was
also denied pension on the ground that he was not possessing
NET/SET qualification. The Division Bench in the said case
considered the Government Resolution dated 27.06.2013 and
observed as under-
3 wp 8724.21
"...
8. It can be thus seen that vide aforesaid G.R., the
State Government has exempted the lecturers who are
appointed between 23/10/1992 to 03/04/2000 and who
were not possessing the net-set examination, M.Phil. and
Ph.D. qualification. Only requirement is that the
appointment of these lecturers is required to be made
after following due selection process. The other
requirement is that appointment of such lecturers ought
to have been approved by the University and University
should have submitted the proposal for grant of approval
of such teachers to the University Grant Commission.
..."
6. The petitioner has retired on 31.05.2014. The benefit of the
said Government Resolution can be accorded to the petitioner.
The said Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court has been
confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The S.L.P. filed against
the said Judgment is dismissed.
7. The said Judgment is subsequently followed by the
Division Bench of this Court at Nagpur in Writ Petition No. 2068
of 2019 dated 29.07.2019. The S.L.P. filed against the said
Judgment is also dismissed. The said judgment is again followed
by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 11316 of
2015 under Judgment and order dated 28.08.2019.
8. In the light of above, the impugned order dated 10.02.2021
denying pension to the petitioner is quashed and set aside. In
case, there is no other impediment, the respondents shall make
the pension applicable to the petitioner on the basis of his last
4 wp 8724.21
salary drawn. The pension proposal shall be processed preferably
within a period of three (03) months from today and the arrears
be paid preferably within a period of three (03) months
thereafter.
9. The writ petition is allowed in above terms. No costs.
[R. N. LADDHA, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]
bsb/Oct.21
