Part-time service can be counted towards pension eligibility under Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, provided cumulative service exceeds ten years.

JUDGMENT :

(S.G. Chapalgaonkar, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of the parties at admission stage.

2. The Petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, impugning communication dated 3.3.2005 issued by Respondent No.3, thereby declining pensionary benefits. The petitioner further prays for issuance of writ of mandamus against respondents to accord her pension by counting period of her part time service for qualified service, as admissible under Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 and Maharashtra Civil Services (Commutation of Pension Rules), 1984 and release pension alongwith the arrears. The Petitioner also seeks directions against respondent no.6-School to submit her pension papers before respondent Authorities for grant of benefits as per old pension scheme.

3. The Petitioner contends that she was appointed as part time Librarian with 'Rashtriya Shikshan Samiti', Nanded vide appointment order dated 13.6.1990 by following due procedure of law. The School i.e. Bharat Vidyalaya, High School, Nanded was receiving grant-in-aid since 1967. The post of the Part time Librarian was also eligible for grant-in- aid. From 30.3.1998 the petitioner was approved as Full Time Librarian. She discharged her duties as full time Librarian till age of her superannuation i.e. 28.2.2005. By the time of her retirement, she had rendered total service of 14 years, 8 months and 19 days (7 years, 9 months and 16 days as part time and 6 years, 11 months and 3 days as full time). According to the petitioner, employees of Private School receiving grant-in-aid are governed by the provisions of Maharashtra Employees of Private School (Condition of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (for short "Act of 1977") and lays down terms and conditions as regards to the salary, pay scale, seniority, promotion as well as pensionary benefits.

4. On retirement of the petitioner, respondent no.2- School had submitted her pension proposal, which was placed before respondent no.3, however, vide impugned order dated 3.3.2005 respondent no.3 returned/rejected the proposal, giving reason that part time service rendered by the Petitioner is not admissible for pension in terms of Rules of 1982. The petitioner submits that, inspite of several correspondence, her proposal was not considered favourably. However, respondent no.3 granted gratuity considering full time service of the petitioner vide order dated 3.1.2012. According to the petitioner, if her part time service counted alongwith her full time service, she would be entitled to qualify for pensionary benefits. The impugned communication is based on incorrect reading of pension rules.

5. Respondent no.4 filed his affidavit-in-reply contending that the petitioner has completed 6 years, 9 months and 27 days service as full time Librarian and 3 years 10 months and 24 days service as a Part Time Librarian. Therefore, pension proposal was forwarded to Accountant General-II, at Nagpur which came to be rejected giving reason that part time service of the Petitioner during 13.6.1990 to 29.3.1998 cannot be counted for pension.

6. Respondent No.3 filed reply contending that rule 70.4 of Secondary School Code stipulates that part time employee would not be eligible for pension scheme. Therefore, part time service of the petitioner as a Librarian cannot be counted as pensionable service. Total qualifying service rendered by the Petitioner is less than ten years. Hence, she is not eligible for pension in terms of M.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1982. The communication dated 3.3.2005 was issued to respondent no.4, asking him to satisfy the office of respondent no.3, on the point of admissibility of pension to the Petitioner and six reminders were given from time to time. However, compliance was not reported. The petitioner is already bestowed with service gratuity and terminal gratuity on 3.1.2012.

7. Mr. Ambetkar, learned advocate appearing for the Petitioner submits tha