Eligibility for pension under the Old Pension Scheme is contingent on service in institutions receiving 100% grants before the cut-off date of 01.11.2005, with precedents acknowledging prior unaided service for pension qualification.

JUDGMENT :

RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

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

2. We have considered the strenuous submissions of the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. The question is as to whether the Petitioner was working in an Institution which received 100% grants-in-aid from the Government, prior to the cut-off date of 01.11.2005, in the light of the Government Resolution dated 31.10.2005, so as to make him eligible for Pension as per the Old Pension Scheme.

3. The Petitioner has put forth prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c), as under :-

“a] This Hon'ble Court may after considering legality validity and proprietary of the order dated 29/12/2015[Exhibit J] thereby returning Pension proposal issued by Respondent no and be pleased to quash and set aside the same

b] This Hon. Court may be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or direction and thereby direct the Respondent no.1 to 3 to consider Pension proposal of the Petitioner and grant and disburse Pension and other retirement benefits to the Petitioner by considering the service of the Petitioner rendered as Full time Art teacher from 1/12/1998 upto 10.10.2002 on unaided post along with service rendered full time teacher from 11.10.2002 till retirement by superannuation on 31/03/2012 on aided basis in Respondent no 6 special school as e qualifying service

c] This Hon. Court may be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or direction thereby directs Respondent no 1 to consider and sanction proposal of the Pension of the Petitioner by superannuation as special case by considering service rendered from 11.10.2002 to 31.03.2012 which constituted 9 years 5 months 18 days as qualifying service for the pension.”

4. The Petitioner has not been granted the pension by the competent authority, concluding that he has not put in qualifying service, only by reckoning his confirmed service in a 100% grant-in-aid Institution rendered from 11.10.2002 to 31.03.2012, which is 9 years, 5 months and 18 days.

5. There is no dispute that the Petitioner had earlier joined employment on 01.10.1994 as a temporary Full-time Art Teacher on a permanent post. The Respondent No.6 School received Government sanction on unaided basis on 02.12.1998. The Petitioner worked as a permanent Full-time Art Teacher on the sanctioned unaided post and received an approval. On 11.10.2002, the post on which the Petitioner was working, received 100% grants. The Petitioner superannuated on 31.03.2012.

6. Respondent No.2, by an order passed on 25.03.2013, returned the proposal for pension of the Petitioner. On 03.11.2015, Respondent No.4 granted administrative sanction under the Special School Code and submitted the Petitioner’s proposal. The said proposal was returned by Respondent No.2 by communication dated 29.12.2015, on the ground that the Petitioner’s service on unaided post cannot be taken into account / cannot be reckoned for the purpose of calculating qualifying service.

7. This issue is directly answered by the Full Bench of this Court in Deshmukh Dilipkumar Bhagwan and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2019 (3) Mh.L.J. 903, in the observations set out in paragraph Nos. 33, 34 and 37 which read as under:-

“33. It is true that the relevant rules under grant-in-aid code refer to an aided school and does not make a distinction between a partially or fully aided school. Nevertheless, the