Bombay High Court
Savita Kamlakar Pingale vs Directorate Of Art Sir J J School Of Art ... on 7 October, 2024
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge, M.M. Sathaye
2024:BHC-AS:40296-DB
.. 1 .. 9-WP-7620-2023 AS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 7620 OF 2023
Savita Kamlakar Pingale
Age : 60 years, Occupation : Retired
Bramhtej Apartment, Shardanagar,
Flat No.3, Shikshak Wasahat,
Malegaon BK., Pune - 413 115. ... Petitioner
Versus
Digitally signed
by PALLAVI
PALLAVI
MAHENDRA
MAHENDRA
WARGAONKAR 1. Mr. Directorate of Art
WARGAONKAR Date:
2024.10.11
11:11:28
+0530
Sir J.J. School of Art Campus,
Dr. D.N. Raod, Fort,
Mumbai 400 001.
2. State of Maharashtra
Through the Principal Secretary,
Department of Higher and Technical
Education, having his office at Mantralaya,
Mumbai 32.
3. Shardabai Pawar Mahila Kalaniketan,
Shardanagar, Malegaon Colony,
Taluka - Baramati, District - Pune. ... Respondents
...
Mr. Mrinal A. Shelar i/b. Mr. S.S. Patwardhan, Advocate for the
Petitioner.
Ms. Nisha Mehra, AGP, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Dr. Rajendra Anbhule a/w Ms. Revathi Nair & Nisha Ahire,
Advocate for Respondent No.3.
...
Pallavi Wargaonkar, PS
::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2024 22:40:28 :::
.. 2 .. 9-WP-7620-2023 AS
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
&
M.M. SATHAYE, JJ.
DATE :- 7th OCTOBER, 2024
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.) :-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard
finally with the consent of the parties.
2. The Petitioner was appointed in the Respondent
No.3 Institute, as a Full Time Lecturer in A.T.D. by the
Agricultural Development Trust, on 18th August 1993. Her
services were confirmed in May 1996. The College in which the
Petitioner was working (Respondent No.3 herein), was
operational on 'Non Grant-in-Aid' basis, since June 1993, which
is evident from the letter dated 14 th June, 1993. The College
received approval for 'Grant-in-Aid' vide communication dated
1st July, 2004 issued by the Directorate of Art, Respondent No.1
herein.
3. The Petitioner on account of her ill-health, opted for
Pallavi Wargaonkar, PS
.. 3 .. 9-WP-7620-2023 AS
a voluntary retirement by tendering her resignation letter, dated
29th April, 2017. The same was accepted and the Petitioner was
relieved on 31st July, 2017. The Petitioner's total service in
continuous employment was from 18th August 1993 to 31st July
2017, with the Respondent No.3, Institute. The qualifying service
for pensionary benefits is 20 years.
4. The Petitioner relies upon the judgment delivered by
this Court [Coram: B.R. Gavai (as his Lordship then was) and
A.P. Bhangale, JJ.] dated 7th December, 2022 in Writ Petition
No.2087 of 2012 (Dnyaneshwar s/o Shankarrao Marotkar vs.
State of Maharashtra, Thr. It Secretary, Department of Higher
and Technical Education & Ors.) at Nagpur. It has been noted in
Dnyaneshwar s/o Shankarrao Marotkar (supra), in paragraph
Nos.3 to 6, as under :-
"3. The petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant
Lecturer in the said College on 1/7/1985. The
petitioner was promoted on 22/3/1995 to the post of
Lecturer and subsequently, to the post of Principal.
The said College came on grant-in-aid basis with
effect from 1/1/2005. The petitioner stood retired on
superannuation with effect from 31/10/2012. After
retirement, the petitioner has been denied the retiral
benefits on the ground that he has not completed
qualifying service of ten years from the date on which
Pallavi Wargaonkar, PS
.. 4 .. 9-WP-7620-2023 AS
the said College came on grant-in-aid basis.
4) The pension scheme is applicable to the employees of
Arts Institutes vide Government Resolution dated
16/11/1996. English translation of the relevant part of
the said Government Resolution reads thus :
"Now, Government is pleased to issue direction
whereby the Pension and Death/Retirement Gratuity
Scheme and other Pensionary benefits including
Family Pension Scheme, 1964 with necessary
changes, which are applicable to the Maharashtra
State Government Employees under the provisions of
Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 are
hereby made applicable to the full time, approved
teaching and non teaching staff of the recognized and
aided non-Governmental Arts Institutions in the State
subject to conditions of this Government Resolution
with effect from 1/4/1995."
5) It could thus be seen that vide said Government
Resolution, the pension scheme is made applicable to
the full time approved teaching and non-teaching staff
working in the recognized and aided non-
Governmental Arts Institutes in the State of
Maharashtra. A pari materia provision with regard to
the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay came
up for consideration before Division Bench of this
Court at the principal seat. The Division Bench
observed thus :
"The definition of the expression "qualifying service"
in the Pension Rules refers to service rendered in a
permanent post. In the present case, there is no
dispute about the position that the petitioner worked
in a post which was sanctioned. Her services were
duly approved by the Education Officer. The test
which must be applied is as to whether an employee
was a full time confirmed and approved member of
the teaching or non-teaching staff of a private primary
aided School on the date of her retirement. If that test
is satisfied, the Pension Scheme is made applicable
by virtue of the provisions of Clause 5(ii). There is no
Pallavi Wargaonkar, PS
.. 5 .. 9-WP-7620-2023 AS
warrant in the Pension Scheme or the Pension Rules
to exclude while computing qualifying service, the
service which is rendered by an employee before a
School came to be in receipt of grant-in-aid. So long
as the School was in receipt of grant-in-aid on the
date on which an employee retired from service upon
attaining the age of superannuation, the application of
the Pension Scheme would be attracted. The
petitioner was an employee of a private primary aided
School on the date of retirement and was hence,
eligible."
It could thus be clearly seen that the Division Bench
has held that so long as School is in receipt of grant-
in-aid on the date on which employee has retired
upon attaining the age of superannuation, his service
rendered during the period when such Institute was on
no grant-in-aid basis is also required to be taken into
consideration while computing the eligible period for
grant of pensionary benefits. In that view of the
matter, the petition deserves to be allowed.
6) In the result, rule is made absolute in terms of prayer
clause (i) of the petition. The necessary steps be taken
by the respondents within three months from today.
No order as to costs."
5. The learned AGP has vehemently opposed this
Petition on the basis of the affidavit-in-reply filed through Vinod
Rangnathh Dandage, Deputy Director, Directorate of Art,
Mumbai wherein it is specifically canvassed that the judgment in
Dnyaneshwar s/o Shankarrao Marotkar (supra), would not be
applicable to the case since the Petitioner has opted for voluntary
retirement from her post, and that the Petitioner Dnyaneshwar s/o
Pallavi Wargaonkar, PS
.. 6 .. 9-WP-7620-2023 AS
Shankarrao Marotkar (supra), had attained the age of
superannuation and was, therefore, entitled for pensionary
benefits.
6. It is beyond debate that merely because a person has
sought voluntary retirement by following the applicable rules, on
account of personal reasons, he is never deprived of pension or
pensionary benefits. No law holding that any employee who opts
for voluntary retirement, would be deprived of pensionary
benefits, is cited before us.
7. We find that the facts in the case in hand would
clearly indicate that when the Petitioner joined employment, said
Institution did not have the grants from the State Government.
On the date she opted for retirement and was granted retirement
as per rules, the institution was receiving 100% Grant-in-Aid.
This issue has been covered in paragraph Nos.4 and 5 in
Dnyaneshwar s/o Shankarrao Marotkar (supra), reproduced
above.
Pallavi Wargaonkar, PS
.. 7 .. 9-WP-7620-2023 AS
8. Considering the law and the facts of the case, we are
of the view that the ratio laid down in Dnyaneshwar s/o
Shankarrao Marotkar (supra), would squarely cover the case of
the present Petitioner. She would be entitled for the retiral
benefits. Needless to state, the statutory interest payable on
amounts like pension, gratuity, etc. would also be payable to her.
If leave encashment has not been paid to the Petitioner, the same
shall carry simple interest @ 6% per annum.
9. As such, this Writ Petition is allowed in terms of
prayer clauses (a) and (b). The Interest on delayed payment of
gratuity shall be @ 12% in the light of the Government
Notification dated 5th October, 1999 issued by Government of
India, Ministry of Personnel, Department of Pension &
Pensioners' Welfare, New Delhi. Other benefits which attract the
statutory interest for delayed payment, would also be payable.
We are granting 6% simple interest per annum on the delayed
payment of leave encashment, if not already paid.
Pallavi Wargaonkar, PS
.. 8 .. 9-WP-7620-2023 AS
10. Let all those benefits be calculated by the employer
within a period of 30 days from today and the payments to be
made, shall be made in two equal installments, first being
payable by 15th December 2024 and the second installment to be
paid by 15th January 2025.
11. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
(M.M. SATHAYE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
Pallavi Wargaonkar, PS
