Bombay High Court
Seema W/O Yashwant Kahu vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Its ... on 3 August, 2024
Author: Nitin W. Sambre
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre
2024:BHC-NAG:8406-DB
1 wp3989.2022..odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 3989 OF 2022
Mrs. Seema w/d. Yashwant Kahu,
aged about 59 yrs., Occ. Retd. Teacher,
R/o. 4, Om Shivai Apartments,
Plot No. 10, Ghagwan Mahavir Marg,
Near Aath Rasta Square,
Laxminagar, Nagpur 440 022 ...... PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1. State of Maharashtra, through
its Secretary, Education and Sports
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai 32
2. Director of Education,
Maharashtra State, Pune,
3. Dy. Director of Education,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur
4. The Education Officer (Sec.),
Zilla Parishad, Nagpur
5. St. Francis De Sales Higher
Secondary School, (S.F.S.) Through
its Principal, Sadar, Nagpur .....RESPONDENTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Anand Parchure, Advocate for the petitioner,
Mr. N.S. Rao, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1
to 4,
Mr. A.D. Mohagaonkar, Advocate for Respondent No. 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- NITIN W. SAMBRE & ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
CLOSED FOR JUDGMENT :18.06.2024
PRONOUNCED ON :03.08.2024
2 wp3989.2022..odt
JUDGMENT (Per : Abhay J. Mantri, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by
the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. By this petition, the petitioner is seeking direction to the
respondents to consider her services as a Full Time Teacher from the
academic Session 2007-08 to 2010-2011 in view of Government
Resolution dated 14.03.2011 and to grant all consequential relief
accrued thereon along with pensionary benefits.
3. The petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant
Teacher (Part-Time) for Mathematics subject w.e.f. 01.07.2001 in
the respondent No. 5 School. The Education Officer, vide
communication dated 02.11.2001, approved her appointment from
29.06.2001 till the end of said academic session. Thereafter, her
appointment was continued as a Part-Time Teacher till 30.06.2011.
Then, vide order of appointment dated 27.06.2011, the petitioner
was appointed as a Full Time Teacher w.e.f. 01.07.2011. Respondent
No. 3 vide communication dated 05.07.2013 approved her
appointment as a Full-time Teacher w.e.f. 01.07.2011. As per the
Government Resolution dated 14.03.2011, the State Government
3 wp3989.2022..odt
has sanctioned as many as 758 posts of Assistant Teacher (Part-Time
and Full-Time). As far as Nagpur Division is concerned, 46 posts of
Full-time Teachers were sanctioned where a full workload of
mathematics and statistics subjects were available. The petitioner
has attended the age of superannuation and retired on 31.12.2021
from the post of Full Time Teacher from respondent No. 5
College/School. Then, on 04.02.2015, respondent No. 5 submitted
the proposal for revision for section approval for the academic
sessions 2007-08 to 2010-11 for the said post. Therefore, the
petitioner claimed she had more than 15 years of service w.e.f.
02.07.2001 till her retirement. She has also claimed that she was
appointed before the cut-off date, i.e. 31.10.2005, and therefore,
she is entitled to get benefits of the Old Pension Scheme. However,
respondents have failed to grant the same. Hence, she has filed this
petition.
4. Heard Mr. Anand Parchure, the learned Counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. N.S. Rao, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. A.D. Mohagaonkar, the learned
Counsel for respondent No. 5.
4 wp3989.2022..odt
5. Mr. Parchure has vehemently argued that the petitioner
has rendered part-time services from 2001 to 2011, and, therefore,
her services are required to be considered as Full Time Teacher after
considering 50% of the Part-Time Service, and she has rendered
Full-Time Services from 2011 till her retirement, i.e. 2021. He
further canvased that in view of the provisions of Maharashtra Civil
Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (for short -" Rules") for counting the
services for pension purposes, half of the period of the part-time
service has to be treated as a Full-time period, i.e. five years and
Full Time Service of 10 years also has to be considered. Accordingly,
the petitioner has rendered total services for 15 years.
6. Alternatively, he submitted that since 2007-08, full
workload was available to the petitioner, and vide Government
Resolution dated 14.03.2011, respondent No. 1 granted approval to
additional posts of Full-time and Part-Time Teachers; therefore, the
petitioner's service has to be considered as Full Time Teacher from
the academic Session 2007-08 and grant consequential benefits
accordingly. However, the respondents have not considered the said
Government Resolution and erred in refusing pensionary benefits to
the petitioner.
5 wp3989.2022..odt
7. He has drawn support from the judgments in the cases of
Prabhakar Namdeorao Metkar Vs. The Deputy Director of Education and Others
(Writ Petition No. 3393/2022); Smt. Pratibha Prakash Almast and others Vs. The
State of Maharashtra and others (Writ Petition No. 80 of 2020); Dilip Rana
Randive Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (Writ Petition No. 14880 of 2022)
and Smt. Prema Narsinha Herkal Vs. State of Mah. and others (Writ Petition No.
3719/2019) and prayed for allowing the petition.
8. As against the above, learned Assistant Government
Pleader Mr. N.S. Rao has vehemently contended that the State
Government,, being aggrieved by the decision of this Court in Writ
Petitions Nos. 4748/2019, 4744/2019, 4747/2019 and 4749/2019,
has preferred Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 9059/2023,
which is still under consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court. In
view of this, he has prayed for the passing of an appropriate order.
9. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties,
gone through the record and proceedings, the Government
Resolutions, and the citations relied upon.
10. At the outset, it appears that vide order dated
29.06.2001, the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher
6 wp3989.2022..odt
(Part-Time) for mathematics subject w.e.f. 02.07.2001 to
01.07.2004, and the same was continued till 30.06.2011.
Thereafter, vide appointment order dated 27.06.2011, the petitioner
was appointed as a Full Time Teacher, and the same was approved
by respondent No. 3 Deputy Director of Education from 01.07.2011
vide communication dated 05.07.2013. On 04/02/2015,
respondent No.5, the headmistress, submitted a proposal to
respondent No. 3, Dy. Director of Education for grant revised section
approval to the post of petitioner from 2007 to 2011 and convert
the part-time post of Ju. College to full-time. She was
superannuated on 31.12.2021 as a Full Time Teacher.
11. It further reveals that the petitioner was appointed prior
to the cut-off date, i.e. 31.12.2005, so also, as per the Rules, for
counting the services for pension purposes, half period of Part Time
Service has to be treated as Full Time Services of 5 years. Thus, the
petitioner has rendered 15 years of services. Therefore, in view of
the provisions of the Rules and the law laid down in the cases cited
supra, we are of the view that the petitioner is entitled to get
terminal benefits in accordance with the law subject to the outcome
of the Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 9059/2023.
7 wp3989.2022..odt
12. The petitioner contended that she had a full workload
w.e.f. 2007-08 to 2010-2011, so she is entitled to get approval for
her services as a full-time teacher from the academic session 2007-
08. However, we do not find any substance in this contention as
respondent No. 5 vide appointment order dated 27.06.2011
appointed her as a full-time teacher w.e.f. 01.07.2011. Secondly, the
Service Certificate produced on record (Annexure 17) reflects that
she had rendered services as an Assistant Teacher (Part-Time) from
02.07.2001 to 30.6.2011 and as a Full-Time Teacher from
01.07.2011 to 31.12.2021. The said certificate clearly shows her
details of the services.
13. In the backdrop above, the law laid down by this court
and the rules we deem it appropriate to allow the petition partly.
Accordingly, we pass the following order:
i) Respondent No. 5 is hereby directed to submit the
petitioner's pension proposal to respondent Nos. 3 and 4
for grant of pensionary benefits, in accordance with law,
within three weeks from the date of production of this
order.
ii) Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are directed to determine
the petitioner's entitlement to pensionary benefits by
8 wp3989.2022..odt
taking into account 50% of the Part-Time Services along
with the total Full Time Services rendered by her and
thereafter grant the pensionary benefits in accordance
with law within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of
the proposal.
14. Rule is made absolute in the after-stated terms.
(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)
R. Belkhede,
Personal Assistant
Signed by: Mr. R. S. Belkhede
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 03/08/2024 16:13:18
