Bombay High Court
Savita Bhikaji Barmukh vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 6 December, 2023
Author: A.S.Chandurkar
Bench: A.S.Chandurkar
2023:BHC-AS:36344-DB
TRUSHA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
TUSHAR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
MOHITE
Digitally signed by
TRUSHA TUSHAR
MOHITE
Date: 2023.12.06
18:45:47 +0530
WRIT PETITION NO.14899 OF 2022
Savita Bhikaji Barmukh
Age : 59 Years, Occ. Retired,
R/at: Vidya Sahkari Gruh Nirman Society
Talegaon Dabhade Tal - Maval
District Pune - 412307
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra
[Summons to be served on the Learned
Government Pleader appearing forth
State of Maharashtra under Order XXVII,
Rule 4, of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908]
2. The Accountant General,
State of Maharashtra
3. The Education Officer
(Secondary)
Pune Zilla Parishad, Pune
4. Poona District Education Association Poona @
Pune Zilla Shikshan Mandal, Pune
Address: 48/1 A, Erandvana,
Poud Road, Pune-38 .... Respondents
Mr.Rahul S.Kadam for the Petitioner
Mr.N.C.Walimbe, Addl. G.P. a/w Mr.K.S.Thorat for the Respondents -
State
CORAM: A.S.CHANDURKAR &
FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ.
RESERVED ON: 28TH NOVEMBER 2023
PRONOUNCED ON: 6TH DECEMBER 2023
Mohite wp14899-22.docx 1/5
::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 29/02/2024 02:39:57 :::
JUDGMENT (PER : FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J) :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of
the parties.
2. By this Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the Orders dated 12 th
November 2021 and 6th May 2022 passed by Respondent no.3 wherein it
has been held that the Petitioner is not entitled for the pension benefit
under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, on the ground
that the initial service of the Petitioner was Part Time.
3. The Petitioner was initially appointed as a 'Part Time Librarian' at
New English School, Chandkhed, Tal-Maval, District Pune, run by
Respondent No.4 on 15th October 1996. The said appointment of the
Petitioner was approved by the then Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla
Parishad, Pune by an Order dated 2nd January 1999.
4. Thereafter, on 30th March 2007, the Petitioner was transferred from
the said New English School to Shri Shivaji Vidyalaya, Dehu Road, Taluka
Haveli, District Pune as a Full Time Librarian w.e.f. 1 st April 2007. The
Transfer Order dated 30th March, 2007 was approved by the then
Education Officer on 8th October 2007.
5. On 1st February 2019, the Petitioner was transferred to Pandit
Nehru Vidyalaya, Kamshet, Taluka Maval, District Pune where she worked
as a Full Time Librarian till 31st May 2020, when she retired due to
superannuation.
6. Thus, the Petitioner had worked as a Part Time Librarian from 15 th
October 1996 till 1st April 2007 i.e. for a period of ten years and five
months and as a Full Time Librarian from 1 st April 2007 till her retirement
on 31st May 2020 i.e. for thirteen years.
7. It is the case of the Petitioner that, as per the Maharashtra Civil
Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, for counting the services for pension
benefit, half of the period of the Part Time service has to be treated as Full
Time, and therefore the Petitioner's total service would be five years plus
thirteen years i.e. eighteen years. It is also the case of the Petitioner that
therefore she is clearly entitled to the pension benefits as per the
Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1982.
8. Further, it is also the case of the Petitioner that, she being entitled
for the said pension benefit, the Respondent no.4- Education Institution
rightly forwarded the proposal for grant of the said pension benefit to
Respondent no.3.
9. By Orders dated 12th November 2021 and 6th May 2022, Respondent
no.3 held that the Petitioner was not entitled for the pension benefit under
the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, on the ground that
the initial service of the Petitioner was on a part time post.
10. The said reason given by Respondent no.3 cannot be sustained in the
light of the settled law to the contrary. The settled position in law is that
the date of appointment on Part Time basis is required to be treated as the
date of entry into service for the purpose of applicability of the pension
scheme under the Maharashtra Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1982, and
that further, even in respect of part time employees, their part time services
have to count towards qualifying service for pension, albeit only 50%. This
settled position of law has been laid down in various judgments of this
Court. However, in order not to burden this judgment, we would like to
refer to the following judgments; (i) Anil Popat Chobhe v. State of
Maharashtra1 and (ii) Pratibha Prakash Almast and Others vs. State of
Maharashtra and Ors.2 which have been cited on behalf of the Petitioner,
which uphold the aforesaid position in law.
11. In the aforesaid circumstances, and for the aforesaid reasons, the
impugned Orders dated 12th November 2021 and 6th May 2022 are
required to be set aside and necessary directions are required to be given to
the Respondents.
12. Accordingly, we pass the following Orders:
a. Orders dated 12th November 2021 and 6th May 2022 passed
by Respondent no.3 are quashed and set aside.
b. Respondent no.3 is ordered and directed to forward the
pension proposal of the Petitioner to Respondent nos.1 and 2 for the
grant of pension benefit under the Maharashtra Civil Services
1 (2022) SCC Online BOM 1726
2 (2023) SCC Online BOM 1262
(Pension) Rules, 1982, within a period of three weeks from the date
of uploading of this Order.
c. Respondent nos.1 and 2 are directed to determine the
entitlement of the Petitioner to pensionary benefits by taking into
account 50% of the total part time service rendered alongwith the
entire full time service rendered by him and thereafter, grant the
Petitioner pensionary benefits in accordance with law within a
period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the proposal.
d. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
e. Writ Petition is disposed of.
f. In the facts and circumstance of the case, there shall be no
order as to costs.
(FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.) (A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.)
