The main legal point established in the judgment is that 50% of the services rendered as a part-time employee should be considered while calculating the qualifying service for pension entitlement.

JUDGMENT :

ROHIT B. DEO, J.

Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. The petitioner 1 was initially appointed as a part-time Librarian on compassionate grounds on the establishment of Bharat Vidayalaya, which is managed by petitioner 2- Society, vide appointment order dated 30.08.1995 with effect from 01.09.1995.

4. The appointment of the petitioner 1 was on probation and was approved by respondent 3- Education Officer vide order dated 16.10.1996.

5. The petitioners submit that since the strength of the students was more than 1500, petitioner 3- School was entitled to one post of full-time Librarian. The said post was occupied by Mr. Meshram, who was working on the establishment of petitioner 3-School. Mr. Meshram superannuated in 2011-12. The petitioner 2 resolved on 29.06.2012 to transfer petitioner 1 from Palasgaon (Jat) to Navegaon on the post of full-time Librarian, which fell vacant in view of the superannuation of Mr. Meshram. Accordingly, the petitioner 1 was transferred as full-time Librarian on the establishment of petitioner 3- School vide order dated 30.06.2012 and she joined duty on 02.07.2012. The transfer on promotion as full-time Librarian of the petitioner 1 was duly approved by respondent 3- Education Officer vide order dated 22.11.2012. The petitioner 1 worked as full-time Librarian till her superannuation on 31.03.2016.

6. Even before the superannuation of petitioner 1, petitioner 3 forwarded the pension proposal of petitioner 1 to respondent 3- Education Officer and respondent 4 – Accounts Officer on the establishment of Accountant General (Accounts and Entitlements)-II alongwith covering letter dated 09.10.2015. In response, respondent 4 issued communication dated 04.12.2015 requesting respondent 3 – Education Officer to resubmit the proposal after complying with certain deficiencies. Respondent 4 reiterated the request on 02.11.2018. The copy of the said request letter was also forwarded to petitioner 1. The petitioner avers that it was only after receiving the said communication dated 02.11.2018 that she learned that the pension proposal had certain deficiencies. Petitioner 1 requested petitioner 3 to do the needful. Petitioner 3 then issued communications dated 06.12.2018 and 19.12.2018 explaining and clarifying the doubts and the queries. The Education Officer forwarded the said explanation/clarification to respondent 4.

7. The petitioners submit that while petitioner 1 was reasonably expecting that the pension shall be sanctioned, vide communication dated 29.04.2019 issued by respondent 4, the pension is rejected and the proposal returned on the ground that the petitioner 1 did not complete the minimum qualifying service.

8. It is fairly not disputed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, Mr. Pathan, that 10 years service is indeed the minimum qualifying service.

9. The petitioners submit that the rejection of pension proposal is on the premise that the service rendered by the petitioner 1 as part-time Librarian will have to be entirely ignored. The petitioners submit that 50% of the services rendered as part-time Librarian will have to be added to the service tenure as full-time Librarian. The petitioner 1 rendered 16 years and 10 months of service as part-time Librarian and 3 years and 9 months of service as full-time Librarian.

10. We may note that while in the body of the petition, the averment is that the entire period of 16 years, 10 months of service as part-time Librarian will have to be added to the service rendered as full-time Librarian, during the course of hearing it is not disputed that only 50% of the part-time employment will have to be considered towards qualifying service.

11. The submission is that if 50% of the part-time employment is considered, the petitioner 1 has rendered qualifying service of 12 years and 4 months and is entitled to pension.

12. The petitioners would submit that the entitlement of the pension will have to be considered on the touchstone of Rule 57, Note 1