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

2022 Supreme(Bom) 690

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT AURANGABAD
Ravindra V. Ghuge, Sandipkumar C. More, JJ.
Surekha Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary of Higher Education Department, Mantralaya & Others - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 416 of 2021
Decided On : 21-06-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Priyanka R. Deshpande, Advocate.
For the Respondents:S.R. Yadav, AGP, A.V. Hon, Advocate.

Point of Law : Temporary/Contractual appointment – Rejection of claim – Justified.

Headnote:

SERVICE LAW - Quashing of the communication - declined to sanction pensionary benefits - Not possessing the requisite qualification on the date of her appointment – Temporary employment – Not entitled for service benefits – Para 16.

Finding of the Court:

Respondent No.3 has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner to grant her pensionary benefits since she was serving in respondent No.7 from 11/01/1986 till 28/02/2003 purely on temporary basis and that despite being appointed on granted post from 28/02/2003, she failed to acquire the requisite qualification regarding NET/SET clearance.

Result : Dismissed

JUDGMENT :

Sandipkumar C. More, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally at admission stage.

2. The petitioner in the present writ petition is seeking quashing of the communication dated 31/08/2020 / 07/09/2020 issued by respondent No.3 to respondent No.7 college, as well as herself whereby respondent No.3 i.e. the Joint Director (Higher Education) Pune Regional Office, Pune has declined to sanction pensionary benefits to the petitioner as she was not possessing the requisite qualification i.e. NET/SET or PHD on the date of her appointment and also not acquired the said qualification within the specified period.

3. The petitioner was appointed as a lecturer vide order dated 08/09/1986 in respondent No.7 college run by respondent No.6 Ahmednagar Jilha Maratha Vidya Prasarak Samaj's a charitable Trust. Accordingly, the petitioner joined the said post as a full time lecturer on 11/09/1986. Respondent No.5 University had also approved the appointment of the petitioner vide order dated 10/11/1986, which was in fact for the period from 11/09/1986 to 05/03/1987. Thereafter, the said appointment was continued from time to time. Then as per advertisement published by respondent No.6 in daily news paper "Kesari" on 20/06/1991, for the appointment of candidates on the post of lecturer for full time and part time, the petitioner got selected for the post of lecturer in Chemistry.

4. However, on 01/10/1993 she was terminated by the management. In appeal bearing No. 79 of 1993 preferred by the petitioner before the College Tribunal, her aforesaid termination was held illegal and her services were again confirmed. In the year 1995, also the respondent No.7 college again terminated the services of the petitioner, but when the petitioner filed contempt petition bearing No.181 of 1995 before the High Court, the concerned management made a statement before the High Court in the said petition that they had not terminated her and therefore, the petitioner remained in service as before.

5. Thereafter, in the year 2000, the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No.2938 of 2000 in this Court for granting her permanency/confirmation on the post of lecturer in Chemistry from the date of her appointment in respondent No.7 college. However, during pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, Head of the Chemistry Department in Respondent No.7 college Shri E. G. Sase retired on 28/02/2003 and hence the petitioner was accommodated in his place. The office of Joint Director (Higher Education), Pune Region, Pune also approved such accommodation of the petitioner from 28/02/2003 on the grant in aid post. Thereafter, the petitioner was also conferred with Selection Grade on 06/03/2007. She was conferred with the designation as a Associate Professor from 01/01/2006 vide order dated 27/11/2009 by the concerned competent authority and the same was also approved by the Joint Director (Higher Education) Pune Region, Pune by its endorsement on the said order. The petitioner then retired on 31/01/2020 on superannuation.

6. The petitioner, thus, claims that as she served continuously in respondent No.7 college for more than 34 years. Respondent No.6 forwarded her proposal for grant of pension to respondent No.3 i.e. the Joint Director (Higher Education) Pune Region, Pune. However, under the impugned order as mentioned above, respondent No.3 declined to grant her pension for the reasons already mentioned above. Hence, this writ petition.

7. On the contrary, the learned AGP on behalf of respondent No.3 strongly opposed the petition by fling an affidavit in reply along with copy of Government Resolution dated 22/11/1993. According to respondent No.3, the present petitioner is not at all entitled for receiving any pensionary benefit as her service for the period from 1986 till 28/02/2003 was purely on temporary basis and that too in non grant unit. Further during that period, the petitioner was appointed on part time basis in non grant unit for certain perio

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