The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of liberal construction of pensionary provisions as a social welfare measure, emphasizing the entitlement of government servants to pension benefits and the need to avoid unreasonably denying such benefits on technicalities.

JUDGMENT :

NEELA GOKHALE, J.

1. Rule. The contesting Respondents have filed Affidavits in Reply. Heard by consent of parties. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. The Petitioner seeks directions to the Respondents to condone a gap in his service, which in turn entitles him to retirement benefits. He further seeks quashing of an Order dated 4th January 2022 passed by the 3rd Respondent rejecting his representation for condoning the gap in service as claimed by Respondents.

3. The Petitioner worked as an Assistant Professor in the 1st Respondent College of the 2nd Respondent University, till his superannuation. The 3rd Respondent is the Directorate of Technical Education of the 4th Respondent State of Maharashtra.

4. The emerging facts in the case are that prior to the Petitioner being employed in the 1st Respondent college, he served as Principal in Maharashtra College of Pharmacy from 19th April 1987 to 18th August 1991. There was approval of the 3rd Respondent to his said employment. Thereafter, he served as Principal at the Institute of Pharmacy run by the Shivajinagar Vidya Prasarak Mandal, for two years on probation period after which his services were confirmed. He served there for as many as 7 years and 11 months followed by an appointment as Principal in the Modern College of Pharmacy, Nigdi, Pune for another period of 1 year, 3 months and 3 days.

5. The Petitioner’s stint in the 1st Respondent College as Lecturer in Pharmaceutics was from 4th October 1999 till 15th April 2000 and was approved by the 3rd Respondent. Thereafter the Petitioner was continued in service on the said post albeit being given technical intermittent breaks in the service for a certain period. Every time, he was given fresh appointment letters and this procedure of engagement continued till 30th April 2009. The Petitioner served on this post from 4th October 1999 till 30th April 2009 with intermittent breaks. The reason for such breaks was that the post was reserved for candidates from the scheduled tribe community and services of the Petitioner were being used for want of an eligible candidate from the ST community.

6. On 11th July 2009, the Petitioner was finally appointed in an open category vacancy on the post, and he has thereafter rendered unbroken service till the date of his superannuation, i.e., till 30th September 2020. Apparently, there is a gap of 674 days in the Petitioner’s service, partly due to technical breaks given earlier and partly on account of vacations. Thus, there is a shortage of only one month and 16 days in computation of the Petitioner’s qualifying service. It is on this basis that the 3rd Respondent refused to grant pensionary benefits to the Petitioner. The Petitioner made representations to the authorities in the University requesting to condone the gap in service. Acknowledging the service record of the Petitioner, the Joint Director of the 2nd Respondent University also recommended condoning the gaps in service to the 3rd Respondent. All the relevant documents are placed on record.

7. The 3rd Respondent, however, taking cover of several provisions of the Maharashtra Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1982 (“MCSP Rules”), refused to condone the gap in service, and, consequently, the Petitioner retired without pension. The Petitioner thus filed the present Petition impugning the act of the Respondent in refusing to condone the gap in service and rendering him ineligible for pension. During the pendency of the petition, his representation to the 3rd Respondent was rejected by its order of 4th January 2022 and by way of an amendment, the Petitioner also impugns the said order.

8. Mr Bandiwadekar, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, draws our attention to various provisions of the Rules and contends that the Petitioner is entitled to condonation of the gap in service as provided in Rule 48 of the MCSP Rules. He further asserts that the Petitioner has actually served even during the so-called technical breaks given to him an