SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Bom) 170

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BHARATI DANGRE, ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ
Jai Maharashtra Shikshak Wa Karmachari Sena - Appellant
Versus
Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation, Mahapalika Marg, - Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO.2202 OF 2022
Decided On : 03-01-2025

Advocates Appeared:
Mr Sachin S Punde, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr Shivprasad D Borade a/w Mr Lalit B Devkate, for the
Respondent-BMC.
Mr Nilesh Datar, Administrative Officer, Aided School Present.
Ms Gaurangi Patil, AGP for the Respondent No.7/State.

The Pension Scheme applies to all qualifying service, including time served before receiving grant-in-aid, ensuring entitlement to pension for eligible employees.

Headnote:

(A) Bombay Public Trust Act, 1951 - Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1808 - Pension Scheme for Private Primary Aided Schools of Greater Mumbai - Petition for pension and retirement benefits for teachers and non-teaching staff denied by Corporation - Court held that qualifying service includes service before grant-in-aid was received - Previous judgments established entitlement to pension under similar circumstances. (Paras 6-18)

(B) Doctrine of Precedents - Importance of judicial consistency and binding precedents emphasized - Court reiterated that previous decisions must be followed unless distinct circumstances are shown. (Paras 14-15)

Facts of the case:
The Petitioner, a Public Charitable Trust representing teachers and non-teaching staff in Brihanmumbai, sought pension benefits for its members who had retired after qualifying service. The Corporation denied benefits based on service rendered before receiving grant-in-aid.

Findings of Court:
The Court directed the Corporation to release pensionary benefits to the Petitioner’s members, affirming that prior judgments established their entitlement.

Issues: The main issue was whether the qualifying service for pension included time served before the school received grant-in-aid.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the Pension Scheme applies to all qualifying service, regardless of grant-in-aid status at the time of service, emphasizing the need for consistency in judicial decisions.

Result: Petition allowed; Corporation directed to release pension with arrears and interest.

JUDGMENT :

ASHWIN D. BHOBE J.

1. Rule. By consent of the counsel, Rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. Petitioner, a Public Charitable Trust registered under Bombay Public Trust Act, 1951, a union of teachers and non-teaching employees working in aided and unaided Pre-Primary, Primary, Secondary and Higher Secondary Schools in Brihanmumbai, has preferred the present petition, seeking grant of pension and retiremental benefits to its members.

Details pertaining to the post held by the members of the Petitioner, date of their appointments, dates of receipt 20% grant-in-aid, dates of receipt 100% grant-in-aid, date of retirement and the period of service are mentioned in the Schedule annexed to the petition as Exhibit A.

Exhibit A makes reference to the following essential facts:-

a) Members (28 nos.) of the Petitioner Association appointed as teachers/non-teaching employees in aided Private Primary Schools in Brihanmumbai–possessed the requisite qualification and their appointment was duly approved by the Respondent No. 1 Corporation. They retired upon attaining the age of superannuation. Having put in service ranging from 17 years to 36 year.

b) The Schools which recruited members of petition started getting 20% grant-in-aid, from Respondent No. 1 Corporation and thereafter 100% grant-in-aid, in the subsequent heirs.

c) Members of the Petitioner have retired after completion of 10 years of qualifying service.

3. Respondent No.1 Corporation is established under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1808.

Education Department of the Respondent No.1 Corporation by a Circular bearing No.SAS/Pension/667 dated 31.10.1997, formulated the “Pension Scheme for Private Primary Aided Schools of Greater Mumbai” (Pension Scheme”) w.e.f. 01.04.1979.

By this Pension Scheme the pensionary benefits were extended to the approved staff (Teaching and Non-Teaching) of the Private Primary Aided Schools in Greater Mumbai.

By Circular bearing No.SAS/Pensions/847 dated 30.11.2005 guidelines were issued in respect of the Pension Scheme.

4. Pension proposals submitted pursuant to the Pension Scheme, by the members of the Petitioner i.e. Teaching/Non- teaching employees were rejected by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 which resulted in refusal of grant of pension and other retiremental benefits to the members of the Petitioner/beneficiaries under the Pension Scheme.

5. Issue raised in the present petition is no more res integra.

The question of the applicability of the Pension Scheme fell for consideration before this Court in Writ Petition No.415 of 2012 filed by the Anuradha Jayant Gangakhedkar Vs. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and Ors. 2012 SCC OnLine Bom 1056.

Ms. Anuradha Jayant Gangakhedkar (supra), an Assistant Teacher working in a Marathi Medium Primary School vis. D. D. @ Babasaheb Deshpande D. S. High School (Primary School), receiving grant in aid, having retired upon attaining the age of superannuation, sought for extension of the benefit under the Pension Scheme. The petition was opposed by the Respondent No.1 Corporation on the ground that, the qualifying service to avail benefit under the Pension Scheme must be construed to be service rendered in an aided school; and service rendered by an employee before the school came in receipt of grant in aid would have to be excluded for computing qualifying service.

Reliance was placed on Rule 48 of the Pension Rules, which provides that a Municipal employee retiring on superannuation before completing qualifying service of 10 years is only entitled to service gratuity of half months’ pay for each completed six months period of qualifying service.

6. This Court by judgment dated 26.07.2012, passed in the said Writ Petition negated the contentions of the Respondent No.1 Corporation and held Ms. Anuradha Jayant Gangakhedkar is entitled to the benefit under the pension Scheme. In paragraph Nos. 6 and 7, this Court held as under:

“6. The Pension Scheme which has been framed by the Municipal Corporation applies to full time

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top