The central legal point established is that an employee, not directly responsible for school de-recognition, is entitled to pensionary benefits as per Rule 25A and Rule 45, and any denial of such benefits is contrary to the law.

JUDGMENT

Anil L. Pansare, J. - Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has put forth following substantive prayers:

''(i) Direct respondent No.1 i.e. Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur and respondent No.2 i.e. Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur Region, Nagpur to forward regular pension case papers to the Respondent No.3 i.e. Accountant General (Accounts & Establishment), Pension Wing, Nagpur on submission of the same by the petitioner by fixing the pension of the Petitioner as per Rules showing the date of retirement as 31/07/2020 or at any rate 30/04/2013 when the school was closed, within stipulated period and on receipt of the same direct the Respondent No.3 i.e. Accountant General, (Accounts & Establishment), Pension Wing, Nagpur to sanction the pension of the Petitioner and release retirement benefits within stipulated period, by suitable and appropriate writ or directions.

(ii) Further be pleased to direct the Respondents to make payment of amount of pension, gratuity and all other retiremental benefits including contribution by State in G.P.F. along with interest thereof at the rate of 12% per annum, by a suitable and appropriate writ or directions.

(iii) Further be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 15/11/2017 (Annexure No.11) passed by the Respondent No.1 i.e. Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur by a suitable and appropriate writ or directions.

(iv) Kindly direct the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 5 to release unpaid salary of the Petitioner from 01/05/2013 till the date of her superannuation i.e. 31/07/2020, by a suitable and appropriate writ or directions.''

3. It is the case of the petitioner that she being professionally and academically qualified and suitable to the post of Assistant Teacher, the respondent no.4 -Management appointed her on clear sanctioned vacant post of Primary Teacher with effect from 01.07.1988 and continued her services. The school was admitted for grant-in-aid vide order 20.07.1990, 50% grant from 01.07.1988 and 100% grant from 1991 onwards.

4. The respondent no.1 - Education Officer granted approval for the period from 01.10.1988 to 30.04.1989 and thereafter from 01.05.1990 onwards. As such, the petitioner worked on sanctioned vacant post of Assistant Teacher (Primary). The respondent no.1 withdrawn recognition of the school with effect from 30.04.2013 vide order dated 31.07.2012. The Deputy Director of Education, while exercising appellate jurisdiction under the Bombay Primary School Act, 1949 granted permission to run and administer the school for the academic session 2013-14 vide order dated 14.03.2013. However, the Education Officer did not permit the management and the teachers to run and administer the school for the academic session 2013-14 and passed the orders contrary to the order passed by the Deputy Director of Education.

5. Further, out of the two approved teachers working in the school run by the respondent no.4, the respondent no.1 did not take steps to process the case of the petitioner for absorption though there were vacancies in the various primary schools. The respondent no.1 however processed the case of another teacher for absorption. As a result thereof the petitioner remained without salary from 01.05.2013. The respondent no.1 refused to accept the pension case papers of the petitioner for grant of regular pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits and vide order dated 15.11.2017 ordered the petitioner to submit proposal for compensation pension holding therein that regular pension is not payable to the teacher whose services have been terminated under Rule 25(A) of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Condition of Service) Rules, 1981 (For short, the 'Rules of 1981').

6. The petitioner has drawn our attention to the impugned order dated 15.11.2017. The pensionary benefits have been denied to the petitioner by relying upon Rule 25 (A) of the Rules of 1