Bombay High Court
Smt Anuradha Raghunath Deshpande vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 27 October, 2021
Bench: R.D. Dhanuka, Abhay Ahuja
WP [email protected] WP961-19, WP4061-19,
WP4558-19, WP4259-19 and WP2461-20.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 960 OF 2019
Vijay Purushottam Pathak ... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 961 OF 2021
Yejaj Ibrahim Patel ... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4061 OF 2019
Ashok Bala Bhanuse ... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4558 OF 2019
Bhagyashri Vishwas Gore ... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
Nikita Gadgil 1 of 13
::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2021 05:53:31 :::
WP [email protected] WP961-19, WP4061-19,
WP4558-19, WP4259-19 and WP2461-20.odt
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4259 OF 2019
Anuradha Raghunath Deshpande ... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2461 OF 2020
Rajendra Annappa Dugane ... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
-------
Mr. Y. B. Lengare with Mr. Wilson Robi, advocates for Petitioners in
all writ petitions.
Mr. N. K. Rajpurohit, AGP with Ms. S. S. Bhende, AGP, Mrs. P. J.
Gavhane, AGP, Ms. K. N. Solunke, AGP, Mr. N. C. Walimbe, AGP and
Mr. V. M. Mali, AGP for State-Respondents in all writ petitions.
-------
CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA AND
ABHAY AHUJA, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 20TH OCTOBER, 2021.
PRONOUNCED ON : 27TH OCTOBER, 2021.
PC:-
1. Learned counsel for petitioners, on instructions, seeks leave to
delete respondents no. 5 to 7. Learned counsel for remaining
respondents have no objection. Leave is granted. Amendments to be
carried out forthwith. Re-verification is dispensed with.
Nikita Gadgil 2 of 13
WP [email protected] WP961-19, WP4061-19,
WP4558-19, WP4259-19 and WP2461-20.odt
2. Rule. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, rule is
made returnable forthwith and heard finally.
3. In all these petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the respective petitioners are seeking directions to the
concerned respondents including the Education Officer (Secondary)
to consider the services and grant approval to the post of Full Time
Librarian (FTL) from the periods referred to in the table below as
per Government Resolution dated 28th June 1994 and to make pay
fixation, pension and time bound promotion/career assurance
scheme by considering the service from the academic years as
mentioned in the following table as per rules and for a declaration
that petitioners are entitled for pensionary benefits under the Old
Pension Scheme, viz., Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules,
1982 ("MCPS Rules, 1982"), Maharashtra Civil Services
(Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1984 and the existing General
Provident Fund Scheme (GPF) and not the Defined Contributory
Pension Scheme (DCP Scheme) issued by the Government
Resolution dated 31st October, 2005.
Nikita Gadgil 3 of 13
WP [email protected] WP961-19, WP4061-19,
WP4558-19, WP4259-19 and WP2461-20.odt
TABLE
Sr. WP No. And Name of Part time Full time Year of 50% Retired on
No the petitioner appointment appointme students Services
. date nt date incereasing
more than
1 WPST No. 960 of 2019 09.07.1996 01.04.2006 2000-2001 12.07.1996
to 2000
Shri Vijay Purushottam
comes to 2
Pathak
years
2 WP No. 961 of 2019 01.01.1996 01.04.2006 1996-1997
Yejaj Ibrahim Patel
3 WP No. 4061-19 03.01.1996 01-05-2007 2003-2004 06.01.1996
To
Ashok Balu Bhanuse
01.05.2003
comes to
3.5 years
4 WP No. 4558-19 17.02.1995 01-04-2006 1995-1996 31.08.2006
Bhagyashri V. Gore
5 WP No.4259-19 12.01.1994 01-04-2006 1994-1995 31.07.2016
Anuradha Raghunath
Deshpande
6 WP No. 2461-20 03.10.1995 01-04-2006 1996-1997
Rajendra Dugane
Ajay Madhukar Kale
4. Brief facts are that petitioners are graduates, qualified in
Library Science and after due selection process were appointed as
Part Time Librarian on the respective dates mentioned in the table
Nikita Gadgil 4 of 13
WP [email protected] WP961-19, WP4061-19,
WP4558-19, WP4259-19 and WP2461-20.odt
above, which had received approval from the Education Officer
(Secondary). It is submitted that even through the academic year
in which the students' strength increased to more than 1000, the
petitioners (except Shri Ashok Balu Bhanuse) were upgraded to
Full Time Librarian only from 1st April 2006 and Shri Ashok Balu
Bhanuse was upgraded from 1st May 2007. It is submitted that the
approval for Full Time Librarian ought to have been granted from
the academic year from which the strength of the students
increased to more than 1000 as per Government Resolution dated
28th June 1994, which has not been done. The contents of the above
table are not disputed by the learned AGP.
5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, petitioners are before us having
filed these petitions for the reliefs claimed therein.
6. Since the issues involved in all these petitions are similar, we
consider it appropriate to pass a common order. We also record that
respondents have filed their affidavit-in-reply and petitioners have
also filed their rejoinders in these matters.
Nikita Gadgil 5 of 13
WP [email protected] WP961-19, WP4061-19,
WP4558-19, WP4259-19 and WP2461-20.odt
7. The facts as set out in the table above disclose that Petitioners
were appointed as part time librarians in the respective schools.
The table annexed in the exhibits to the respective Petitions and as
indicated in the above table/chart indicates the academic year from
which the strength of the students increased above 1000 and
through the year the same continued thereafter. It is not in dispute
that the Education Officer (Secondary) has approved the
appointments of these petitioners as part time librarians in terms of
Government Resolution dated 28th June, 1994. In accordance with
the said Government Resolution, the post of part time librarian can
be upgraded as a full time librarian, if the school satisfies the
criteria, i.e., if total strength of the students becomes 1000 or more.
The fact that the said criteria has been satisfied in these Petitions is
not in dispute.
8. In all these petitions, though various reliefs have been sought,
the short controversy involved in the above petitions is whether the
petitioners are entitled to notional compensation of their salary,
time-bound promotion/career assurance scheme benefits and
pensionary benefits from the year when the strength of the students
Nikita Gadgil 6 of 13
WP [email protected] WP961-19, WP4061-19,
WP4558-19, WP4259-19 and WP2461-20.odt
in the schools, in which they have been working, exceeded 1000.
Further, in the case of two petitioners viz. Vijay Purushottam
Pathak (WP 960 of 2019) and Ashok Bala Bhanuse (WP 4061 of
2019), petitioners therein are claiming 50% service i.e. entitlement
to half of the part time service rendered by petitioners in the
educational institution together with full time service in such
institute for the period of calculating qualifying service.
9. With respect to the issue regarding 50% service of part time
librarian, this Court in the case of Jyoti Prakash Chougule Vs. State
of Maharasthra & Ors. in Writ Petition No.2354 of 2012, has
categorically held that petitioner shall be entitled to half of the part
time service rendered by the petitioner in the educational
institution together with full time service rendered in such
educational institution for the purposes of qualifying service as well
as pensionary benefits. It is also useful to refer to Rule 57 Note No. 1
of Pension Rules, which provides for considering such services and
which has been discussed in the case of Shalini Asaram Akkarbote
in Writ Petition No. 8289 of 2013, a view reiterated by various
benches of this Court. Therefore, in our view, the service rendered
Nikita Gadgil 7 of 13
WP [email protected] WP961-19, WP4061-19,
WP4558-19, WP4259-19 and WP2461-20.odt
by the petitioners as part time librarian half of period of such
service will have to be taken into consideration in addition to the
period for which petitioners have worked as full time librarian and
accordingly, entitled to pensionary benefits.
10. Also the Nagpur Bench of this Court in Darshana Adhikrao
Gaikwad in Writ Petition No. 5421 of 2017 has clearly held that in
the Government Resolution dated 31st October 2005, there is no
distinction between part time and full time employees and that the
Government Resolution mutatis-mutandis applies to employees who
are recruited on or before 1st November 2005, to whom the existing
pension scheme of GPF would apply.
11. With respect to the time-bound promotion/Career Assurance
Scheme, this Court by order dated 4th October, 2018 in Writ Petition
No.334 of 2018 in the case of Shri Suresh Bhanudas Shinde and
Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and connected Writ Petitions has held
that in view of a number of decisions passed by this Court in similar
matters that the second benefit after 24 years of service be granted
to all non-teaching staff, who are similarly situated as Petitioners,
Nikita Gadgil 8 of 13
WP [email protected] WP961-19, WP4061-19,
WP4558-19, WP4259-19 and WP2461-20.odt
viz., who have been given the first benefit, i.e., the benefit after
putting in 12 years of service. However, with respect to the time-
bound promotional scheme to non-teaching staff on completion of
24 years of regular service, we note that by order dated 10 th
February, 2021 in Review Petition (St) No.3452 of 2019 in Writ
Petition No.5629 of 2018 and connected Petitions, this Court after
prima facie accepting the submissions made by the learned
Advocate General that the said judgments were in respect of one
time benefit of Time Bound Promotion Scheme after completion of
12 years in service not having application with respect to the
employees, who were claiming second benefit on completion of 24
years, stayed the orders in Review. Learned counsel for Petitioners,
therefore, on instructions, submits that with respect to the prayers
pertaining to the time-bound promotional scheme in these petitions,
he is limiting the petitioners' claim only to the first benefit after
completion of 12 years of service.
12. We have by our judgment dated 27 th October, 2021, dealt with
similar issues, after considering the various Government
Resolutions and the decisions of this Court. Since the facts in these
Nikita Gadgil 9 of 13
WP [email protected] WP961-19, WP4061-19,
WP4558-19, WP4259-19 and WP2461-20.odt
Petitions as well as in Writ Petition (St) No.57 of 2020 are similar,
we deem it appropriate to follow the same course of action in these
matters, as well.
13. In this view of the matter, applying the well settled principles
discussed above and for the reasons contained in Writ Petition (St.)
No. 57 of 2020, we issue the following directions to be acted upon in
line with the above discussion:-
(i) The concerned Respondents are directed to
consider Petitioners' services and grant approval
to Petitioners to the post of Full Time Librarian
with effect from the academic years when the
respective institutions have acquired the strength
of 1000 students or more as per the Government
Resolution dated 28th June, 1994 as contained in
the table referred to above and make pay fixation,
pension, and time bound promotion by considering
the said Government Resolution and the date as
28th June, 1994.
Nikita Gadgil 10 of 13
WP [email protected] WP961-19, WP4061-19,
WP4558-19, WP4259-19 and WP2461-20.odt
(ii) The concerned Respondents are directed to grant
notional pay fixation, time-bound promotion and
other retirement and pensionary benefits to the
Petitioner upon considering full time appointment
on the post of Librarian from the date of initial
appointment as contained in the table above,
having regard to the academic years in which the
strength of the students was 1000 or more.
(iii) The concerned respondents are directed to
consider the 50% services of part time librarian
during the periods mentioned in the table above
for the purposes of service benefit and make the
pay fixation, pension and time bound promotion.
(iv) In respect of petitioners, who have retired from
the respective educational institutions, the
management/head master of the concerned
educational institutions is/are directed to submit
the pension papers of such petitioners within a
period of four weeks from the date of
communication of this order and the concerned
Nikita Gadgil 11 of 13
WP [email protected] WP961-19, WP4061-19,
WP4558-19, WP4259-19 and WP2461-20.odt
respondents are directed to consider the
respective proposals in accordance with the MCPS
Rules, 1982, the Maharashtra Civil Services
(Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1984 and the
existing General Provident Fund Scheme (GPF)
and not in accordance with the Defined
Contributory Pension Scheme (DCPS) and the
concerned respondent(s) is/are directed to
release/credit the arrears of
salary/retiral/pensionary benefits in favour of the
respective petitioners within four weeks
thereafter.
(v) The respective managements/schools are directed
to send petitioners' proposal(s) to the concerned
respondents for extending the benefits of the time
bound/career assurance scheme for the first
benefit on completion of 12 years, within two
weeks of the communication of this order and the
said respondents to consider the same within a
further period of two weeks.
Nikita Gadgil 12 of 13
WP [email protected] WP961-19, WP4061-19,
WP4558-19, WP4259-19 and WP2461-20.odt
(vi) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Petition
is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as
to costs.
(vii) Parties to act on the authenticated copy of this
order.
(ABHAY AHUJA, J.) (R. D. DHANUKA, J.)
Nikita Gadgil 13 of 13
