Back
2020 Supreme(Bom) 707
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
S.S. Shinde, V.G. Bisht, JJ.
Mohan Shamrao Shinde - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 11746 of 2018
Decided On : 16-07-2020
C.G. Gavnekar, Advocate, G.S. Hiranandani, Advocate, V.M. Mali, Advocate
The central legal point established is that non-NET/SET teachers appointed prior to a certain date are exempt from the educational qualification requirement for pension benefits, as per the Government Resolution dated 27/06/2013.
Headnote:
Pensionary Benefits - Appointment of Lecturer - Government Resolution dated 27/06/2013 - Article 226 of the Constitution
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a lecturer, was denied pensionary benefits due to not acquiring NET/SET qualification, despite being appointed with the approval of the University and rendering continuous service for over 20 years.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's initial appointment on CHB basis was approved by the University, and subsequent appointments were duly approved. The court also considered the Government Resolution dated 27/06/2013, which exempted non-NET/SET teachers from acquiring the educational qualification for pension benefits.
Issues: The main issue was the petitioner's entitlement to pensionary benefits without acquiring NET/SET qualification.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Government Resolution dated 27/06/2013, which exempted non-NET/SET teachers from the educational qualification requirement for pension benefits, and directed the resubmission of the pension proposal for appropriate consideration.
Final Decision: The court directed the resubmission of the pension proposal to the relevant authorities for processing and decision within four weeks.
JUDGMENT
V.G. Bisht, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned counsel waives service on behalf of the respondents. By consent of the parties heard finally at the stage of admission.
3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the letter dated 5/06/2018 addressed by Respondent No.2 and impugned action of Respondent No.3, whereby it is held that the petitioner is not entitled for pensionary benefits.
4. The petitioner came to be appointed as Lecturer on Clock Hour Basis (CHB) on 20/06/1992 in Respondent No.6 College through University Selection Committee. The appointment of the petitioner subsequently came to be approved by University vide letter dated 8/08/1992 and the petitioner worked as CHB teacher upto 9/06/1995. He then came to be appointed as Full Time teacher by Local Selection Committee on 20/06/1995 and his appointment was duly approved by Respondent No.8 University by letter bearing No.85/3370 dated 6/07/1996. The petitioner since his appointment in Respondent No.6 College on 20/06/1992 as Lecturer worked continuously till his date of retirement on 31/05/2017. In all, the petitioner states that he worked as a Teacher in Senior College for 25 years.
5. According to the petitioner since he was appointed with approval of University on CHB basis and was duly qualified as per the norms existed for appointment of Lecturer, he was not required to acquire NET/SET qualification and was thus exempted from acquiring NET/SET qualification by resolution dated 27/01/2014 and 22/01/2015. Therefore, not having NET/SET qualification was not ground to disqualify him from getting pensionary benefits.
6. In view of his retirement on 31/05/2017, Respondent No.6 - College submitted pension proposal to Respondent No.3 Divisional Joint Director, who in turn sought clarification as to how the petitioner was exempted from NET/SET qualification. Respondent No.8, the Registrar, Shivaji University, Kolhapur, relied upon Government decision that since the petitioner was working in Respondent No.6 - College since 20/06/1992 on CHB basis and thereafter on 15/11/1995 as Full Time Lecturer, therefore, he was entitled to be exempted from NET/SET qualification.
7. Respondent No.3 further returned the pension proposal alongwith service book to Respondent No.6 College on the ground that clarification sought by him from Respondent Nos.1 and 2 was awaited. Lastly, Respondent No.2 by the impugned order informed that the petitioner was not entitled to pensionary benefits for want of acquiring NET/SET qualification and rejected proposal for pensionary benefits.
8. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner after his regular appointment did not acquire prescribed educational qualification i.e. NET/SET qualification and he came to be regularised on 27/06/2013. He would be governed by Defined Contribution Pension Scheme (New Pension scheme) (DCPS) and shall not be entitled to benefits of old pension scheme.
9. At the outset there is no challenge to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner that initial appointment of the petitioner on CHB basis was with the approval of University and even subsequent appointment was duly approved by the University by the orders dated 08/08/1992 and 06/07/1996 (Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B"). Not only that, the record reveals that the petitioner was granted increment as per procedure from time to time. Moreover, the petitioner had rendered continuous service of more than 20 years therby entitling him to pensionary benefits as provided under pension rules.
10. Apart from above, learned counsel for the petitioner has tendered on record the Government Resolution dated 27/06/2013 (Exhibit "F") and translation (Exhibit F-1"). It will be relevant to refer to translated part of Government Resolution which reads as under :
"GOV
