Point of Law: Service matter - Arrears of pension - 50% of the part time services rendered by the Petitioner has to be taken into consideration along with the services rendered by the Petitioner as full time teacher for grant of superannuation pension benefits.

JUDGMENT :

Abhay Ahuja, J.

1. Learned counsel for Petitioner seeks leave of this Court to delete Respondent No.6. Leave is granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. Re-verification is dispensed with.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Mr. N.K. Rajpurohit, the learned Additional Government Pleader for Respondents No.1 and 3 to 5 waives service.

3. By consent of counsel for the parties, Writ Petition is heard finally.

4. By this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner is challenging the order dated 19th November 2013 issued by the Accounts Officer, Office of the Principal Accountant General, Accounts Entitlement-I, Mumbai, refusing / rejecting the pension proposal in respect of Petitioner.

5. It is submitted that Petitioner was appointed as part time librarian in Swami Vivekanand Vidyamandir on 29th August 1992 and till 31st March 2006 she served as part time librarian. With effect from 1st April 2006, she came to be appointed as full time librarian, till she superannuated on 31st December 2013. It is the case of Petitioner that her total part time service is 13 years, 7 months and 2 days and her total full time service is 7 years 8 months and 30 days.

6. Mr. Misar, learned counsel for Petitioner submits that Petitioner has continuously served for 21 years uninterruptedly and thereby qualifies the criteria for pensionable service of more than 10 years. He submits that in a similar case, this Court has allowed the Petition directing the Respondents to consider the pension proposal of Petitioner and for making payment thereof and relies upon the decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Kalpana Jagatrao Dahiwale Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. In Writ Petition No. 1673 of 2021.

7. Per Contra, learned AGP relies upon the affidavit-in-reply dated April/May 2021 and submits that part time service of Petitioner cannot be considered for pensionery benefits.

8. We have heard Mr. Misar, Learned Counsel, on behalf of Petitioner and Mr. Rajpurohit, Learned Additional Government Pleader for Respondents No. 1 and 3 to 5 and with their able assistance, we have perused the papers and proceedings in the matter.

9. Facts not being in dispute, in a catena of decisions, this Court has held that 50% of the part time services rendered by a part time librarian is required to be counted for the purposes of pensionery benefits alongwith the full time services rendered by the employee. In the case in hand, admittedly, Petitioner has served as part time librarian from 29th August 1992 to 31st March 2006 and from 1st April 2006 till her retirement on 31st December 2013, has worked as full time librarian, resulting in total part time service to 13 years 7 months and 2 days and total full time services to 7 years 8 months and 30 days. If 50% of total part time service was added to the full time service, the total period of Petitioner’s service would be more than 10 years, entitling Petitioner to the benefit of services rendered as full time librarian for the purposes of superannuation pension in accordance with Rule 30 and Rule 57 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (the “MCPS Rules, 1982”). For the sake of convenience Rule 57, Note 1 on the MCPS Rules, 1982 is usefully quoted as under:-

“Note 1 - In case of employees paid from contingencies who are subsequently brought on a regular pensionable establishment by conversion of their posts, one-half of their previous continuous service shall be allowed to count for pension.

(Emphasis Supplied)”

10. We also place reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Kalpana Dahiwale (supra), (where one of us, R. D. Dhanuka, J was a member). Paragraphs no. 9 to 12 from the said decision are usefully quoted as under:-

“9. This Court in case of Jyoti Prakash Chougule Vs. State of Maharashtra has considered identical facts and after adverting to the judgments of this Court in Shivappa S/o Bhujangappa Bembale Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. and various other ju