Bombay High Court
Smt. Vanita Rajendra Bhadule vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 8 December, 2022
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre, Sharmila U. Deshmukh
rsk 1 9-WP-9702-21.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.9702 OF 2021
Vanita Rajendra Bhadule ...Petitioner
Vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
-------
Ms. Manish Jagtap i/b J. Shekhar & Co. for the Petitioner.
Mr. N. C. Walimbe, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 to
5-State.
-------
CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE &
SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, JJ.
DATED : 8 DECEMBER 2022.
P. C. :
Heard.
Digitally signed
by RAJESHWARI
RAJESHWARI SUBODH
KARVE
2. The Petitioner's services were converted from part-time teacher
SUBODH
KARVE Date:
2022.12.12
10:28:17 +0530
to full-time teacher with effect from 18/9/2006. The Petitioner was initially
appointed on 18/8/1998 and the Petitioner superannuated on 30/11/2022.
3. In this backdrop, the claim of the Petitioner is for grant of
retirement benefit including old pension scheme. Reliance is placed on the
judgment of this Court in Renuka Chandrabhan Umredkar vs. State of
Maharashtra & Ors. Writ Petition No.3696/2021 decided on 7/9/2021
particularly paragraph No.13.
rsk 2 9-WP-9702-21.doc
4. It is claimed that part-time services of the Petitioner is to be
considered and included while counting the qualifying services for the
purpose of grant of benefits under old pension scheme.
5. While countering the aforesaid submission, learned Assistant
Government Pleader would seriously urge that initial appointment of the
Petitioner i.e. 20/7/1998 was on contract basis and not approved by the
Respondent- Authorities, as such according to him the benefits of old
pension scheme cannot be extended to the Petitioner.
6. We have appreciated the aforesaid rival submissions. In the
judgment of this Court delivered in the matter of Renuka Chandrabhan
Umredkar (cited supra) in paragraph No.13 this Court had made following
observations:
"13. The Division Bench of this Court after adverting to various
judgments of this Court has held that the services of the
employee of the Educational Institution is to be counted from
the first date of appointment irrespective of whether it is on a
part time or full time post. If such appointment is prior to 1st
November, 2005, then the old pension scheme would be made
applicable to such employee. This Court considered that
the Government Resolution dated 31st October, 2005 which
provides in Clause 4 that the employees who are to be recruited
on or after 1st November, 2005 in the services of the recognized
and aided educational institutions, the new pension scheme i.e.
DCPS is made applicable."
7. From the observations therein it is to be inferred that the
Petitioner, who is employed in the Education institute is seeking counting
rsk 3 9-WP-9702-21.doc
of services of the Petitioner for the purpose of pension scheme from the date
of her initial appointment i.e. 20/7/1998. The said issue is already answered
by this Court by interpreting the provisions in favour of the Petitioner.
However, what can be noticed is whether the initial services of the Petitioner
were approved or not needs to be looked into by the Competent Authority.
8. In this backdrop, we direct Respondent to decide the claim of
the Petitioner for entitlement to retirement benefits keeping in mind the
observations of this Court in Renuka Chandrabhan Umredkar (cited supra).
Let the petition be treated as representation before the said authority.
Appropriate decision be taken in any case by 31/3/2023. Petitioner to
appear before the said Authority on 3/1/2023.
9. The petition stands disposed of.
(SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.) ( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)
