Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Nitin Jamdar, M.M. Sathaye, JJ.
Dr. (Mrs.) Satyawati Sudhir Joshi - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Maharashtra And Others - Respondent
Writ Petition No.1741 of 2020
Decided On : 18-07-2024
PENSION - Pensionary Benefits for University Employee - Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 - Rule 33; Government Resolution dated 7 March 1986 - The court interpreted Rule 33 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, which allows for the counting of temporary or officiating service for pension eligibility if followed by confirmation in a permanent post. The court emphasized that the Petitioner's continuous service, including condoned breaks, qualified her for pension benefits despite the Respondent's attempts to separate her service periods. The court directed the University to submit a proposal for de-reservation of the Petitioner's post to ensure her eligibility for the old pension scheme.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner, after 33 years of service at Savitribai Phule Pune University, was denied pensionary benefits. She had served in various capacities, including temporary and permanent positions, and had breaks in service that were condoned by the University. After her retirement, the State Government contested her eligibility for pension based on the nature of her appointments.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Petitioner's service was continuous and that the breaks in service had been properly condoned. The University supported the Petitioner's claim for pension, and the court ruled that the Respondent's arguments to separate her service periods were unjust and inequitable.
Issues: Whether the Petitioner is entitled to pensionary benefits considering her entire service period, including temporary appointments and condoned breaks, and whether the Respondent's separation of service periods was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that under Rule 33 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, the Petitioner’s service, despite being temporary, qualified her for pension benefits due to the continuous nature of her employment and the condonation of breaks. The court emphasized the need for a formal proposal for de-reservation of her post to facilitate her pension eligibility.
Final Decision: The court declared the Petitioner entitled to pensionary benefits, ordered the University to submit a proposal for de-reservation of her post, and directed the State to process her pension papers accordingly.
JUDGMENT :
Nitin Jamdar, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for disposal.
2. The Petitioner, though having completed thirty-three years of service with the Respondent - University, is denied the pensionary benefits. Aggrieved, the Petitioner is before us, with this Writ Petition.
3. The Petitioner was the employee of Respondent No.3 Savitribai Phule Pune University. Respondent No.1 is the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Higher and Technical Educational Department. Respondent No.2 is the Auditor, Department of Higher Education.
4. Respondent No.3 - The University had published an Advertisement for filling in various teaching posts in the University departments vide Advertisement No. 55 dated 21 September 1992.
The Petitioner applied for the post of Reader on 23 October 1992. Petitioner was appointed to the post of a Reader in Chemistry in the University Department of Chemistry against the post reserved for the Nomadic tribe category temporarily for six months by order dated 10 August 1993. After that, the services of the Petitioner as Reader were continued against the post reserved for the DT/NT category from 9 July 1994 to 29 June 1995 and 8 July 1995 to 15 October 1995.
5. The applicant submitted an application on 28 January 1995 for the position of Lecturer in Chemistry at the University Department of Chemistry. Subsequently, the applicant was appointed as a Lecturer in Chemistry on a purely temporary basis, effective from 3 November 1995, against the post reserved for the Scheduled Tribes category. This temporary appointment was extended from 24 June 1996 to 12 June 2006, with successive periods of appointments ranging from one to three years.
6. Respondent No.3 - University issued Advertisement No. 21 on 21 April 2006, calling for applications for various teaching positions in the University Departments. In response to the Advertisement, the Petitioner applied for the position of Reader -Open Category at the University Department of Chemistry. Following the application, the duly constituted Selection Committee conducted an interview with the Petitioner on 7 June 2006, and subsequently, based on the Committee's recommendation, the Petitioner was appointed to the position of Reader - Open Category in the University Department of Chemistry on probation for a period of two years, as per the Appointment Letter dated 20 June 2006. The Petitioner's confirmation to the position of Reader (Open) in the Department of Chemistry was formalised by a letter dated 23 June 2008, with the confirmation becoming effective from 23 June 2008.
7. The Petitioner had five breaks in service amounting to 51 days in their temporary appointments within the reserved categories of DT, NT, and ST. The Vice-Chancellor of Respondent no. 3 University condoned these breaks in service in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 7 March 1986.
8. After serving as a Reader for three years, the Petitioner's title was changed to Associate Professor, and the corresponding pay scale adjustment was implemented. Subsequently, the Petitioner was promoted to the position of Professor in the Department of Chemistry under the Career Advancement Scheme, effective from 23 June 2012. The Petitioner retired upon reaching 60 years of age, as of 30 April 2016. Following the Petitioner's retirement, all pension paperwork and relevant documentation were submitted to the Joint Director of Higher Education in Pune.
9. Since there was no response from Respondent Nos.1 and 2, the Petitioner filed this Writ Petition on 7 January 2020.
10. Reply is filed on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Respondent No.3 - University. Rejoinder affidavit is also filed on behalf of the Petitioner.
11. We have heard Mr. Venkatesh Shastry, the learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. B.V. Samant, Additional Government Pleader for the State and Mr. Rajendra Anbhule for Respondent No.3 -University.
12. The University- Respondent No.3, has supported the Petitioner's case. As per t
The liability to pay the pension and other benefits payable under the provisions of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 would be that of the State Government and not the University o....
The continuous advertisement of a reserved post for a specified period without a response from reserved category candidates entitles the appointed candidate to de-reservation and service benefits as ....
Past temporary services of employees must be considered for pension calculation under the Bihar Pension Rules, ensuring fair treatment and preventing undue hardship.
Existing pension at the rate of Central University be stopped - petitioner had been substantively appointed in the post of the Registrar of Tripura University. Hence, the service rendered by the peti....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of completing a minimum qualifying service of 10 years for pension eligibility, as per the relevant statutes and precedents.
Point of Law : Temporary/Contractual appointment – Rejection of claim – Justified.
Eligibility for pension benefits requires continuous service without voluntary breaks; prior service in different institutions does not automatically qualify unless condoned.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
