Bombay High Court
Ramesh Ananda Jadhav vs The State Of Maharashtra Thru ... on 14 December, 2023
Author: A. S. Chandurkar
Bench: A. S. Chandurkar
2023:BHC-AS:39766-DB
1 wp-12142-2022.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.12142 OF 2022
Ramesh Ananda Jadhav
Age-58, Occupation-Retired Teacher
R/o. At & Post Nave Chavare,
Tal: Hatkananagale, Kolhapur 416 112 ... Petitioner
Digitally
Versus
signed by
ASHVINI
ASHVINI BAPPASAHEB
BAPPASAHEB KAKDE
KAKDE Date:
2024.01.02
18:17:41
1. The State of Maharashtra
+0530
Through its Secretary, School Education &
Sports, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.
2. The Director of Education (Education)
Maharashtra State, Central Building,
Pune 411 001.
3. The Deputy Director of Education
Kolhapur Region, Kolhapur/Chairman,
Grievance Redressal Committee, having his
Office at Hattimahal Road, Kolhapur.
4. The Superintendent, Pay & Provident Fund
Unit (Secondary), Hattimahal Road, Kolhapur.
5. Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad Satara, Satara -415 002
6. The Principal,
Kisan Veer Mahavidyalay, Wai Tal. Wai
Satara 412 803.
7. Janata Shikshan Sanstha through its
Secretary, Wai, Taluka Wai, Satara 412 803. ... Respondents
-----
Ashvini Kakde 1 of 10
::: Uploaded on - 02/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2024 03:07:32 :::
2 wp-12142-2022.doc
Mr. C. G. Gavnekar a/w. Mr. Ashutosh Gavnekar & Mr. Rohit Parab for the
Petitioner.
Mr. R. P. Kadam, AGP for Respondent Nos 1 to 5.
-----
CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR &
FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ.
DATE : 14TH DECEMBER 2023
Judgment (Per Firdosh P. Pooniwalla J.):-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by
consent of the parties.
2. By the present Petition, the Petitioner is challenging an Order
dated 8th August 2022 passed by Respondent No.3 whereby Respondent No.3
has held that, as per the Government Resolution dated 31st October 2005
and the Government Letter dated 21st December 2018, for being eligible for
pension it is essential to be employed continuously on a 100 % grant post
prior to 1st November 2005, and therefore the Petitioner was not entitled to
pension and his proposal was rejected.
3. The Petitioner has, from 13th June 1988 to 31st May 2022,
discharged duties as a Teacher in various Secondary Schools and Junior
Colleges, the particulars of which are as below:-
Ashvini Kakde 2 of 10
3 wp-12142-2022.doc
Sr. No. Name of the Post Duration Granted or not
School/College
1 Shivaji High School, Full Time 13/06/1988 100%
Bavachi, Tal Walva, Assistant to
Sangli Teacher 09/12/1988
2 Shramik Vidyalay, Full time 24/06/1989 100%
Banage, Tal Kagal, Assistant to
Kolhapur Teacher 29/06/1991
3 Junior College of Full Time 01/07/1991 100%
Science, Arts & Teacher in to
Commerce, Junior College 21/11/1992
Rahimatpur,
Koregaon, Satara
4 Bhogavati Full time 23/11/1992 100%
Mahavidyalay, Teacher in to
Kurukali, Karveer, Junior College 19/06/1993
Kolhapur
5 Junior College of Full Time 21/06/1993 100%
Science, Arts & Teacher in to
Commerce, Junior College 01/02/2000
Rahimatpur,
Koregaon, Satara
6 Kisan Veer Full time 02/02/2000 Stages of Grant
Mahavidyalay, Wai, Teacher in to
District Satara Junior College 31/05/2022 Academic Year Percentage of Percentage of
grant to grant to
division individual
work load
1999-00 00% 48%
2000-01 00% 00%
2001-02 00% 00%
2002-03 00% 00%
2003-04 20% 12%
2004-05 40% 24%
2005-06 60% 37%
2006-07 80% 72%
2007-08 100% 92%
2008-09 100% 100%
Ashvini Kakde 3 of 10
4 wp-12142-2022.doc
4. The said details of employment of the Petitioner clearly show
that the Petitioner was, prior to 1st November 2005, employed in various
Secondary Schools and Junior Colleges which were receiving 100% grant-in-
aid.
5. As the Petitioner was to retire from Respondent No.6- College on
31st May 2022, Respondent No.6 submitted his Pension Proposal to
Respondent No.5-Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Satara, with
a request to forward the same to Respondent No.3-Deputy Director of
Education. The said Proposal was forwarded by Respondent No.3 along with
a covering letter dated 21st December, 2021.
6. On receipt of the Pension Proposal from Respondent No.6, the
Office of Respondent No.3 addressed a letter dated 11 th February 2022 to
Respondent No.5 calling upon him to obtain explanation in respect of the
queries raised in said letter. The said queries raised by Respondent No.3 were
about submitting an Order of Tribunal dated 1 st July, 1991, whether
continuity of service was granted to the Petitioner, about service certificates
from the Principal/Education Officer that the Petitioner had worked in
Junior Colleges which were receiving grants, whether break in service of the
Petitioner was condoned and clarification with regard to the grants received
Ashvini Kakde 4 of 10
5 wp-12142-2022.doc
by Respondent No.6-College till it received the grant of 100% and
explanation as to why the Petitioner was permitted to serve in the said
College when it was not receiving grant between 2000 to 2008.
7. On receipt of the said queries, Respondent No.6 sought
clarification from the Petitioner in respect of the same. The said clarification
was provided by the Petitioner, and by a letter dated 19 th March 2022, the
same was forwarded by Respondent No.6 to Respondent No.5 with a request
to forward the same to Respondent No.3. In the said clarification it was
stated that, prior to the Petitioner joining the services of the Respondent
No.6- College on 2nd February 2000, he had worked in institutions receiving
100% grant. The Petitioner was paid full salary from 2 nd February 2000 till
his retirement of 31st May 2022 as per an Order of the School Tribunal. It
was further clarified that the Government Resolution dated 31 st October
2005 was not applicable to the Petitioner. It was also clarified that short
service breaks of the Petitioner had been duly condoned by the concerned
Colleges and Authorities. It was further clarified that the Petitioner was
permitted to open GPF account and hence it was claimed that the Petitioner
was given continuity of service, senior grade pay scale and all increments
from time to time. In these circumstances, Respondent No.6 requested
Ashvini Kakde 5 of 10
6 wp-12142-2022.doc
Respondent No.3 to sanction the Pension Proposal of the Petitioner.
8. Since no decision was taken on the Pension Proposal of the
Petitioner, submitted by Respondent No.6, the Petitioner addressed a letter
dated 20th July 2022 to the Grievance Committee-Deputy Director of
Education, Kolhapur Region, complaining about the delay in deciding the
Proposal. Pursuant to the said representation, Respondent No.3 fixed a
hearing in his office on 8th August 2022.
9. By the impugned Order dated 8th August 2022, Respondent No.3
held that, as per the Government Resolution dated 31 st October 2005 and the
Government Letter dated 21st December 2018, for being eligible for pension
it is essential to be employed continuously on a 100 % grant post prior to 1 st
November 2005, and therefore the Petitioner was not entitled to pension and
his proposal was rejected.
10. We are unable to agree with the reasons given by Respondent
No.3 for rejecting the Pension Proposal of the Petitioner. The law in this
regard is well settled by various decisions of this Court. It would be
appropriate to refer to one such decision of this Court in the case of Nilesh
Ashvini Kakde 6 of 10
7 wp-12142-2022.doc
Namdeo Gurav Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.1 Paragraph 12 to 16 of
the said judgment read as under:-
12. Having considered these submissions, it is to
be noted that the Petitioners were appointed as
employees on
part-time posts in education institutions which
were fully aided
educational institutions i.e. receiving 100% grant-
in-aid prior to 1st November 2005.
13. We are of the view that the issue arising in these Petitions is
no longer res integra. There has been a consistent stand taken
by this Court in the decisions referred to and relied upon by the
learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the service of the
employees of educational institutions is to be counted from the
first date of appointment irrespective of whether it is on part-
time or full time basis. This stand has been made clear by this
Division Bench in Renuka Chandrabhan Umredkar (supra),
wherein the Government Resolution dated 31st October 2005 as
well as the Full Bench decision of this Court in case of
Deshmukh Dilipkumar Bhagwan (supra) and prior decision of
Division Bench of this Court in case of Shri Purushottam
Harishchandra Shirsekar (supra) amongst other decisions were
considered. This Court had upon considering the Government
Resolution dated 31st October 2005 and in particular Clause 4
thereof observed that as per Government Resolution, employees
recruited on or after 1st November 2005 in the services of the
recognized aided educational institutions, the new pension
scheme i.e. DCP Scheme has been made applicable.
14. The Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of
Deshmukh Dilipkumar Bhagwan (supra) had held that
employees appointed prior to 1st November 2005 in aided
educational institution and receiving 100% grant-in-aid prior to
1st November 2005 shall be governed by the old pension
scheme. It was held that since employees in that matter had
been appointed prior to 1st November 2005 and occupied a
part time fully aided post i.e. receiving 100% grant-in-aid from
the State Government, the old pension scheme would be made
applicable to such employees. This decision has been followed in
the subsequent decision in Shri Purushottam Harishchandra
1 WP-4748-2019
Ashvini Kakde 7 of 10
8 wp-12142-2022.doc
Shirsekar (supra) wherein this Division Bench held that the
Petitioner had been appointed as part time Shikshan Sevak on
11th September 2001 on the post which was a sanctioned aided
post in the school. The Petitioner's services were granted
approval by the Education Officer and the services continued.
The employee was thereafter, appointed as part time teacher
and upgraded to full time teacher in the said school on 15th
June 2015 which post was a sanctioned aided post. It was
accordingly, held that the Petitioner would be entitled to the
benefits of the old pension scheme and the relevant date of the
service of the employee is to be counted from the first date of
appointment irrespective of whether it is on a part-time or full
time posts.
15. The Division Bench in the recent decision in
Renuka Chandrabhan Umredkar (supra) after referring to the
above referred decisions held that the Respondent-State could
not overlook the fact that the Petitioner therein was appointed
as part-time Librarian on aided post in 100% aided school and
the said appointment was duly approved by the Education
Officer. The Respondents-State thus, could not refuse to give
benefit of 50% of services rendered by the Petitioner therein as
part-time Librarian prior to 1st November 2005 for
computation of pensionable services along with the services
rendered by the Petitioners on full time basis after 31st October
2005. The entitlement of the Petitioner for pension under the
old pension scheme would be on the basis of initial date of
appointment as part-time Librarian on aided post and not on
the basis of appointment as full time Librarian under DCP
Scheme. It has accordingly, been held that the Petitioner would
be governed by the old pension scheme and not DCP Scheme
introduced on 31st October 2005.
16. We are of the view that the present case of all
the Petitioners are similar as to the Petitioners in the above
referred decisions as they were appointed prior to 1st
November 2005 in fully aided education institutions albeit on
part-time basis. It is clear from the Affidavit in Reply of
Respondent No. 5 filed in Writ Petition No. 4748 of 2019 and
Writ Petition No. 4749 of 2019 that the only contention of the
Respondents is that the Petitioners were not appointed as full-
time employees prior to 1st November 2005 and were
appointed as part-time employees and thus, not extended the
old pension scheme. However, it has not been disputed that the
Petitioners were employees in educational institutions which
were fully aided institutions prior to 1st November 2005.
Ashvini Kakde 8 of 10
9 wp-12142-2022.doc
11. As per the said judgement, employees appointed prior to 1 st
November 2005 in aided Educational Institutions receiving 100% grant-in-
aid prior to 1st November 2005 would be governed by the old pension
scheme. In the present case, the service record of the Petitioner, as set out
hereinabove shows that from 13th June 1988 till 29th June 1991, the
Petitioner was employed in Schools receiving 100% grant-in-aid, and further
that, from 1st July 1991 to 1st February 2000 the Petitioner has been
employed in Junior Colleges receiving 100% grant-in-aid. Further, even as
far as the period from 2nd February 2000 to 31st May 2022 is concerned, at
which time the Petitioner was employed with Respondent No.6-College, the
Respondent No.6-College received 100% grant in aid from the Academic Year
2008-2009.
12. Therefore, prior to 1st November 2005, the Petitioner was
employed in various schools and Junior Colleges which were receiving 100%
grant-in-aid. Therefore, as per the judgement of this Court in Nilesh Namdeo
Gurav (supra), the Petitioner would be entitled to pensionery benefits. The
decision of Respondent No.3 that, for his whole period of employment prior
to 1st November 2005 the Petitioner should be employed in an institution
receiving 100% grant-in-aid, is without any basis and incorrect.
13. For all the aforesaid reasons the following orders are passed:-
Ashvini Kakde 9 of 10
10 wp-12142-2022.doc
A. Impugned Order dated 8th August 2021 passed by
Respondent No.3 is hereby quashed and set aside.
B. Respondent No.3 is ordered and directed to
sanction the Pension Proposal of the Petitioner.
C. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 are directed to give all
pensionary benefits under the unamended Maharashtra
Civil Services Pension Rule 1982 ("Old Pension Scheme")
to the Petitioner.
D. Rule issued in this Petition is made absolute in the
aforesaid terms.
E. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will
be no order as to costs.
(FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.) (A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.)
Ashvini Kakde 10 of 10
