M.S. Sonak, J.

1. By this petition, the Petitioner seeks pension and other retiral benefits by counting her services from 25.2.1975 to 5.11.1984 rendered with the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education (Board) along-with her service as a clerk-cum-stenographer at the PD Lions College of Commerce and Economics, Malad (West), Mumbai (School), an aided Institution with effect from 6.11.1984 to 31.1.2002.

2. There is no serous dispute that the Petitioner is entitled to pension and other retiral benefits on the basis of her service with the School rendered from 1984 to 2002. The only reason this has remained to be paid till date is because the Petitioner refused to sign the pension papers by excluding period of service with Board from 25.2.1975 and 5.11.1984 apprehending that the signing of such papers might be construed as waiver of her larger claim.

3. The only question which remains is whether the Petitioner's service from 1975 to 1984 with Board is to be counted for the purposes of determination of her pension and other retiral benefits.

4. Mr. Jayaraman, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner primarily made the following two submissions:

(a) In terms of Rule 46(2) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, a resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service if it has been submitted to take up, with proper permission, another appointment. Relying upon resignation letter dated 6.8.1984 and further letter dated 9.10.1984, it was submitted that the Petitioner's appointment as a clerk with the school consequent upon her resignation from the board services or 'with proper permission' and therefore the benefit of Rule 46(2) ought to have been extended to the Petitioner; and

(b) The denial of the benefit to the Petitioner was on the basis of clear misconception that the Petitioner's services with the Board from 1975 to 1984 were 'non pensionable' at the time of her resignation with effect from 5.11.1984. In fact, vide G.R. dated 1.11.1985, the State had made pension scheme applicable to the Board initially prospectively, but later on from 10.2.1987 retrospectively, i.e., with effect from 1.8.1983. Since the Petitioner was very much in service on 1.8.1983, her services with the Board at the time of her resignation was 'pensionable service'. Therefore, the benefit of such pensionable service has been wrongfully denied to the Petitioner.

5. Mr. Jayaraman placed reliance upon number of rulings of the Supreme Court, which hold that the pension is neither a bounty, nor a matter of grace depending upon sweet will of neither the employer, nor an ex-gratia payment. It is a payment for the past services rendered. It is a social welfare measure rendering socio economic justice to those who in the hayday of their lives ceaselessly toiled for the employer on an assurance that in their old age they would not be left in lurch. Pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on their retirement but have become, under the decisions of this Court, valuable rights and property in their hands and any culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest at the current market rate till actual payment. A person serving for a long period earns his legitimate expectation. It is not something which he seeks as a begging bowl. (D.S. Nakara vs. Union of India - (1983) 1 SCC 305, State of Kerala vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair - 1985(1) SCC 429, Deokinandan Prasad vs. State of Bihar & ors - 1971(2) SCC 330 and Dhan Raj vs. State of J & K - (1998) 4 SCC 30.)

6. Mr. Jayraman also placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of T.S. Thiruvengadam vs. Union of India (1993) 2 SCC 174), wherein it has been held that :

“...... Rule 37, thus, provides that a Government servant who has been permitted to be absorbed in service in a Central Government public undertaking in public interest, be deemed to