SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Bom) 366

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
R. D. DHANUKA, R.I. CHAGLA, JJ.
Satappa s/o Shrihari Patil – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 3783, 1013, 3759 of 2016, 1014 of 2019, Writ Petition (Stamp) 27155 of 2018
Decided on : 01-10-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Shrikrishna B. Solanke a/w Mr. Govind B. Solanke, Mr. A.I. Patel, Addl. Govt. Pleader a/w Ms. P.J. Gavhane, Mr. Ramesh D. Rane, Mr. Shankar P. Thorat, Mr. Ashutosh Gavnekar i/by Mr.C.G. Gavnekar, Dr. U.P. Warunjikar a/w Mr. Sumit Kate

Point of Law: Service matter - Pension - Applicability of Government Resolution - The Government servants whose appointment were issued prior to 31st October, 2005 would be governed by the old pension scheme.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Maharashtra Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules,1984 - Maharashtra Civil Services (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1981 - Shikshan Sevak - Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 - Rules 2(2), 9 (12) and 30 - General Provident Fund Scheme - Shikshan Sevak - Government Resolution - Petitioner that all full time employees recruited by Zilla Parishads are entitled to receive pension for services rendered by them and pensionary benefits as provided under said MCS (Pension) Rules, said MCS (Commutation of Pension) Rules and also existing General Provident Fund Scheme - Defined Centralized Pension Scheme - Whether date of letter issued by Zilla Parishads instructing petitioners to report for duties subject to furnishing an undertaking as prescribed would make petitioners eligible to claim pension under Rules, 1982 or on basis of date of petitioners reporting on duty during period Government Resolution introducing “Defined Centralized Pension Scheme” (DCP Scheme) would apply.

Finding of the Court :

The said rule 2(2) of MCS (Pension) Rules does not refer to word “appointment” or does not prescribe a condition that appointment would come into effect only from the date of reporting on duties and not from date of appointment letter. The said letter does not indicate date of joining as effective date of appointment. Court has to read all conditions in the letter of appointment harmoniously. It is not case where there was any delay on part of petitioners to report on duties i.e. after joining date prescribed in the letter of appointment. It was specific direction issued in letter of appointment to join duties during a particular period which in this case coincidentally fell after 1st November, 2005. The petitioners had no choice but to report on duty only during the selected period prescribed in the letter of appointment - Court view that said condition prescribed in the letter of appointment to submit an undertaking is a condition subsequent and not condition precedent, the date of submission of such undertaking after 1st November, 2005 would not shift the date of appointment.

Result: Writ petitions allowed.

JUDGMENT :

R.D. Dhanuka, J.

1. Rule. Learned counsel for the respondents waives service. By consent of parties this batch of petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.

2. Learned counsel for the parties jointly state that the facts and questions of law involved in these petitions are similar and thus the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 3783 of 2016 would apply in the other writ petitions which were heard along with Writ Petition No. 3783 of 2016. Statement is accepted. The parties have addressed this Court in the Writ Petition No. 3783 of 2016 and partly also in Writ Petition No. 1013 of 2019. We will summarized the facts in Writ Petition No. 3783 of 2016.

3. By these petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for a declaration that the petitioners are recruited prior to 1st November, 2005 and therefore are entitled to get the benefits of pension scheme under Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 [for short ‘the said MCS (Pension) Rules) or Old Pension Scheme] and the Maharashtra Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules,1984 (for short ‘the said MCS (Commutation of Pension) Rules) and General Provident Fund Scheme (for short ‘the said GPF Scheme’) and for other reliefs.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that they came to be appointed as Shikshan Sevak vide appointment order dated 26th October, 2005 issued by the Zilla Parishad, Satara on probation. The petitioners are working as Assistant Teachers with their respective schools mentioned in the clause title. Petitioner nos. 10 and 11 came to be transferred to the Zilla Parishad, Pune, Petitioner No.12 came to be transferred to Zilla Parishad, Nashik and the petitioner no.13 came to be transferred to the Zilla Parishad, Thane by way of Inter District Transfers and are working with their respective schools.

5. On 27th March, 2003, the State of Maharashtra issued a Government Resolution providing that the Shikshan Sevak would be appointed against the sanctioned post of Assistant Teachers in the respective establishments (schools). The expenses towards the Shikshan Sevak is actually the expenses of the sanctioned post of Assistant Teacher and the same is shown and accounted against the same head as it is shown and sanction every year. It is further provided in the said Resolution that the Shikshan Sevak would be appointed in the sanctioned post of Assistant Teacher. It also prescribes the qualification, duties, responsibilities, remuneration, evaluation and supervision of the work of Shikshan Sevak, procedure for confirmation as an Assistant Teacher on completion of three years probation period and committee for selection of Shikshan Sevak, etc. Annexure ‘B’ to the said Government Resolution prescribes the form of appointment order. It is provided in the said form that their services as a Shikshan Sevak would be recognized and counted for pension pay and other retirement benefits.

6. It is the case of the petitioner that the benefits of the said MCS (Pension) Rules and the said MCS (Commutation of Pension) Rules and the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad General Provident Fund Rules are thus applicable to the Assistant Teachers. It is the case of the petitioners that the Shikshan Sevak are appointed against the vacant and permanent post of Primary Teachers. Their salary and charges are paid out of the fund created under the Act for the Primary Teachers and the expenses are also shown as expenses of Primary Teachers appointed in District Service Class-III. On their recruitment as Shikshan Sevak and entering into the District Services Class III, the terms and conditions of their service relating to leave, retirement, pension (including gratuity and family pension) are regulated under the provisions of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services Rules, 1968. Clause 6 of the said rules provides that the provision of the MCS (Pension) Rules, 1982 as amended from time to time are ap

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top