The court emphasized that periods of service in unaided colleges, when accompanied by a lien and salary from the aided institution, should count towards qualifying service for pension benefits.

JUDGMENT :

RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

1. We have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates/Addl. GP on behalf of the litigating parties before us. We have perused the extensive order passed by this Court [Coram : Smt. Ranjana Desai (as Her Ladyship then was) and A.A. Sayed (as His Lordship then was), JJ.] dated 24^th September, 2009. The same reads as under :

1. The petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to the 1^st respondent i.e. the Secretary Higher and Technical Education Department, Government of Maharashtra to fix her pension and other retirement benefits on the basis of continuous service.

2. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as a lecturer in the college of the 5^th respondent namely Shikshanshatra Mahavidyalaya, Malegaon Camp, Nashik on 15th July, 1975. In that college the petitioner worked upto 17-06-1979. The petitioner then worked in MSG Arts, Science and Commerce, Jr. College from 1-9-1980 to 31-08-1987. Thereafter the petitioner worked as a lecturer in MSG Arts, Science and Commerce Sr. College from 1-9-1987 to 31-5-1992. Thereafter from 1-6-1992 to 31-5- 1995 the petitioner worked in Sardar College of Education Malegaon, as the Principal. It must be noted here that the said college is unaided Government recognized college. Thereafter from 1-6-1995 to 31-1-1997 the petitioner worked as a lecturer in MSG Arts, Science, Commerce, Sr. College, Malagaon. Thereafter she worked in JAT Womens Arts, Science and Commerce Sr. College Nasik as the Principal from 1-02-1997 to 31-08- 1997. From 1.9.1997 the petitioner has been working as a lecturer in MSG Arts, Science and Commerce College Malegaon.

3. At this stage it is also necessary to note that during the above period, there were certain breaks in the petitioner's service which are as under :-

BREAK IN SERVICE

4. It is apparent that the petitioner has been working from 1975 onwards in Jr. and Sr. Colleges run by the 5th respondent. The case of the petitioner is that the breaks in her service which we have quoted hereinabove were beyond her control. According to the petitioner in the meeting dated 8-7-1997 the Management of the 5th respondent decided to recommend the petitioner's case for condonation of breaks in service. Vide letter dated 1-12-1997 as per resolution passed in meeting held on 8-7-1997 the Principal of the 5th respondent submitted proposal to the second respondent i.e. Director of Higher Education, Maharashtra State and requested that 488 days break in the petitioner's service be condoned. It appears that 3^rd respondent by letter dated 1.4.1998 directed the Principal to resubmit the proposal by removing the deficiencies. Accordingly the proposal was resubmitted. The petitioner vide letter dated 14-7-1998 requested respondent No.3 that the period of deputation in Sardar College of Education (unaided) was wrongly treated as break in service. and that the said deputation period should not be treated as break in service. It is pertinent to note that by letter dated 19-8-1998 the 3rd respondent recommended the petitioner's case to the second respondent.

5. By letter dated 20-3-2007 the first respondent informed the second respondent that the request made for condonation of the break in service of the petitioner cannot be considered and the petitioner may be informed accordingly. The petitioner was communicated this in July, 2007. The petitioner is aggrieved by this letter and hence he has filed the petition.

6. We have herd Mr. Bandiwadekar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Anilkumar Patil