Bombay High Court
Devidas Pundlik Muneshwar vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 1 September, 2021
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala, R. N. Laddha
.. 1 ..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.6253 OF 2017
Devidas Pundlik Muneshwar .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Others .. Respondents
...
Mr Y. P. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mrs M.A. Deshpande, Addl. G.P. for Respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4
Mr S.S. Thombre, Advocate for Respondent No.2
...
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA
AND
R.N. LADDHA, JJ.
DATE : 01-09-2021
PER COURT : -
1. The petitioner seeks directions against the respondent that the
petitioner is entitled for exemption from passing NET / SET
examination on the ground that his initial appointment is with effect
from 02-09-1991. The petitioner seeks directions against the
respondent to sanction pensionary benefits and also cash benefits.
2. Mr Deshmukh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that
the petitioner was appointed on 02-09-1991 on temporary basis.
This Court in its Judgment and order dated 05-01-2017 delivered in
Writ Petition No. 7361 of 2015, had directed the Director of Higher
Gajanan
.. 2 ..
Education to consider the proposal of the petitioner afresh
considering the appointment of the petitioner on 03-09-1991 as
temporary and not on contractual basis, however, the same is not
considered. The learned Counsel submits that the University has
condoned the break in service for the period of 14-04-1992 to
07-07-1992 and 16-04-1993 to 14-06-1993. The University is the
competent authority. The learned Counsel further submits that as the
appointment is prior to 01-10-1992, the petitioner is not required to
obtain NET / SET qualification and is entitled for cash benefits.
3. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the
respondents have committed illegality in denying the benefits to the
petitioner.
4. The learned AGP submits that the petitioner is not entitled for
CAS benefits. Since the petitioner does not possess the required
qualification, the petitioner is not entitled for pensionary benefits
also. No illegality has been committed in negativing the claim of the
petitioner.
5. We have also heard Mr. Thombre, learned Advocate for the
University.
Gajanan
.. 3 ..
6. It appears that the petitioner was initially appointed on
02-09-1991 on temporary basis. His services were discontinued and
fresh appointment orders were issued.
7. There was a break in service for about 145 days prior to the
regular appointment on 01-01-1994. The said break in service is
condoned by the University for the pension purposes under order
dated 26-08-2005. The petitioner did not acquire NET / SET
qualification. The appointment of the petitioner would be considered
as a regular appointment from 01-01-1994.
8. The break in service has not been condoned for regular
purposes by the University as the petitioner does not possess NET /
SET qualification. In view of the Judgment of the Division Bench of
this Court at Principal Seat in Writ Petition No.2082 of 2013 dated
23.12.2015, it has been held that those appointed between
24-10-1992 to 03-04-2000 and not possessing NET / SET
qualification are not entitled for CAS benefits. The petitioner's
regular appointment is with effect from 01-01-1994. Earlier break in
temporary service is condoned for the pension purpose by the
University, but has not been condoned by the Director of Education.
Gajanan
.. 4 ..
In respect of the break in service of the temporary employee, only a
Director of Higher Education has power to condone the break in
service, but he has refused to condone the break in service.
9. Be that as it may, the appointment of the petitioner from 01-
01-1994 is a regular appointment. The same is also not disputed by
the University. The petitioner would be entitled to the benefits of the
Government Resolution dated 27-06-2013. The said GR has given
exemption for the employees, who have not passed NET / SET
examination. It has been provided in the said GR that the
Government hereby grants approval to hold the services of those non
NET / SET teachers appointed during the period 23-10-1992 to 03-
04-2000, who during the service period had not acquired the
educational qualification (NET / SET / Ph.D./ M.Phil) prescribed for
the post of lecturer by the UGC, valid for all the purposes from the
date of issuance of the said Govt Resolution subject to the conditions
laid down therein. It is not disputed that, the petitioner possesses the
necessary qualification for the said post except NET / SET
qualification. In view of the G.R. dated 27-06-2013 though the
petitioner may not be entitled for the CAS benefits, but the petitioner
would be entitled for the pensionary benefits considering his
continuous service from 01-01-1994 till the date of his retirement.
Gajanan
.. 5 ..
10. Reliance can also be placed on the Judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat in Writ Petition
No.13166 of 2017 dated 03-10-2018.
11. In light of the above, the impugned communication is
quashed and set aside.
12. The respondents shall process the pension proposal of the
petitioner considering that the petitioner is entitled for the pension
being in regular services with effect from 01-01-1994 till the date of
his retirement. The pension proposal shall not be rejected only on
the ground that the petitioner did not possess NET / SET
qualification. The pension proposal shall be processed expeditiously
and preferably, within four months.
13. The arrears be paid deducting the amount of the provisional
pension received by the petitioner.
14. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.
[ R.N. LADDHA ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA ]
JUDGE JUDGE
...
Gajanan
