The main legal point established in the judgment is that 50% of the services rendered as part-time Librarian and 100% services rendered as full-time Librarian should be considered for the computation of pensionable services under the relevant Rules.

JUDGMENT

R.D. Dhanuka, J. - Rule.

2. Learned AGP waives service on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 waives service.

3. By our order dated 20th July 2021, it was made clear that the Court would make an endevour to dispose of the Writ Petition finally at the admission stage subject to time constraint. Though Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are served, none appears on behalf of them.

4. By this Petition fled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has prayed for an order and declaration that the Petitioner is entitled to superannuation pension since she has completed the qualifying service of 10 years to get the said pension, taking into consideration one half of service of the part time service rendered by the Petitioner along with the entire service rendered by the Petitioner on full time basis, in the post of Librarian in the Respondent No. 6-School.

5. The Petitioner was appointed on 26th December 1995 as part time Librarian in the Respondent No. 6-School run by the Management at the sanction and aided post. Education Officer granted approval for part time Librarian from the year 1996. The Education Officer thereafter, granted approval on 25th June 2007 to the Petitioner in the full time post of Librarian appointed on 1st April 2006 by upgradation of the said part time post as full time on 29th February 2016. The Petitioner retired from services as full time Librarian. It is the case of the Petitioner that she has rendered services as part time Librarian for a period of 10 years and 3 months and thereafter, full time Librarian for a period 9 years and 11 months and thus, became eligible to superannuation pension by completing qualifying service of 10 years as required in the pension rules. Since the Petitioner was refused the payment of superannuation pension by the authority, the Petitioner fled this Petition.

6. Mr. Bandiwadekar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner invited our attention to various documents annexed to the Petition. It is not in dispute that the appointment of the Petitioner as part time Librarian was already approved on 3rd February 1996. The Petitioner was working as part time Librarian in the school run by the same Management and thereafter, as full time Librarian in the same school approved by the same Management.

7. Learned Counsel invited our attention to various judgment annexed to the Writ Petition at pages 31 to 58 in support of his submission that under Rule 57 Note 1 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, the Petitioner was entitled to benefit of 50% of the services rendered by him as part time Librarian in the school approved by the said Management which was aided post and also entitled to period of services rendered as full time Librarian for the purpose of superannuation pension under Rule 30 and 57 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982.

8. Mrs. Gavhane, learned AGP for the State on the other hand tried to distinguish the judgments relied upon by the Petitioner and submits that the period of services rendered by the Petitioner as part time Librarian cannot be considered for the purpose of full time superannuation.

9. This Court in case of Jyoti Prakash Chougule Vs. State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition No. 2354 of 2012 Order dated 07.01.2014) has considered identical facts and after adverting to the judgments of this Court in Shivappa s/o Bhujangappa Bembale Vs. State of Maharashtra & anr., (2005) 3 MhLJ 709 and various other judgments has held that the teacher should not have been deprived of the services rendered under the same Management, but may be in different schools or institutions. The services could have been clubbed or added to as desired. It is held that the State Pension Rules are applicable to the teachers in terms of Rule 19 of the MEPS Rules, the above principle will apply. This Court directed the Accountant General to consider the case of the Petitioner by giving pensionary benefit in view of