IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that 50% of the part-time service can be added to the full-time service for calculating qualifying service for pensionary benefits under Rule 30 of Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982.

JUDGMENT :

Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the parties.

2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner prayed for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to consider 6 years of part time service w.e.f. September 2001 to September 2007 while computing qualifying service for the pensionary benefits.

3. The learned advocate for the Petitioner submits that, the Petitioner has qualified B.Sc, MP.Ed and DCM. She was appointed as Shikshan Sevak (Physical Education) with the Respondent No. 5 Junior College on part time basis w.e.f. 18.09.2001. Her appointment was duly approved by Respondent no. 2 vide order dated 11.02.2002. She worked with the Respondent no. 5 for the period of 6 years w.e.f. 18-09-2001 to 18-09-2007 as a part time lecturer in Physical Education. Thereafter, she was appointed on full time Shikshan Sevak (Physical Education) w.e.f. 20.06.2007. The Respondent No. 2 Deputy Director of Education granted approval to the appointment of the petitioner on 06.11.2007. In the year 2007, she was granted senior pay scale. Then, she was appointed as a Director of Physical Education with Respondent No. 5-College on 25.09.2013 on 100% grant-in-aid basis against the vacant post. On 03.01.2014, the Respondent No. 6 University granted approval for said appointment w.e.f. 29.11.2013.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the Petitioner worked as a Part Time Teacher with grant of approval of Respondent No. 2 from year 2001 to 2007 and as a Full Time Teacher from 20.06.2007 till 2013 and presently working being a Director of Physical Education from the year 2013 and She would be retiring on 16.05.2029. Since, she has performed six years as a Part Time Teacher, therefore, said period needs to be considered while computing her pensionary benefits.

5. The learned advocate for the Petitioner submits that Rule 30 of Maharashtra Civil Services Rules provides commencement of Qualifying Service. Qualifying service of Government employee commences from the date from which the employee substantially or temporary capacity is appointed. Therefore, at the time of the retirement, the service rendered by the petitioner being part time teacher required to be considered.

6. To buttress her submissions the learned advocate for the Petitioner relied on the cases of Chitralekha M. Naik vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2022) 1 AIR Bom R 510 and Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeet vs. Ganpat Kisan Karle, (2016) 3 AIR Bom R 697, Single Judge Bench of this Court, authored by one of us (Coram: Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.). Further he relied on an order dated 24.03.2023 passed in Writ Petition No. 9545/2022 (Vandana Lakhichand Borole vs. State of Maharashtra and Others).

7. Per contra Mr. S.B. Narwade, the learned AGP appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 vehemently canvassed that, initially the petitioner was appointed with the Respondent No. 5 on 18.09.2001 on part time basis, but said appointment was not approved by the Respondent No. 2. Deputy Director of Education. Therefore, said period as a part time cannot be considered for the purpose of pensionary benefits under Rule 30 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, and hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

8. Adv. S.R. Patil, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 submits that, after due permission of Respondent No. 2, the selection procedure was followed and the Petitioner was appointed. The Petitioner joined as Shikshan Sevak on 18.09.2001. Respondent No. 2 granted approval to the appointment of the Petitioner on 11.02.2002, on full time basis w.e.f. 20.06.2007 vide letter dated 06.11.2007. Therefore, she was continuously working since then, and hence, prayed for passing an appropriate order.

9. Needless to say that, the Petitioner was fully qualified for appointment being a Shikshan Sevak as she did B.Sc., MP.ED, DCM. No doubt, initially, she was