Pramodini Mangesh Rukari vs Superintendent Pay & Provident Fund Unit And Ors

S.S. Shinde, J

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and by consent of the learned counsel for the parties heard finally.

The Petitioner, by this Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order/letter dated 07/03/2018 passed/issued by

Respondent No.2 herein to Respondent No.3 whereby the proposal for grant of pension to the Petitioner came to be rejected. The Petitioner seeks

further direction to the Respondents to grant and release the pensionary, gratuity and other incidental benefits to the present Petitioner by holding that

the Petitioner is entitled for grant of pension.

The relevant facts leading for filing the Petition as disclosed in the Petition are as under :-

The Petitioner was appointed as part time librarian at Bhakarai Secondary School Fursungi, Tal. Haveli, District Pune from 08/06/1998 till 31/03/2006.

While working in the said school as part time librarian, the Petitioner came to be appointed as the full time librarian with effect from 01/04/2006.

Thereafter the Petitioner continued to work in the said school as full time librarian till 30/06/2009, and thereafter from 01/07/2009 till today the

Petitioner worked in Respondent No.3 School as full time librarian till her superannuation on 31/05/2018. It is the case of the Petitioner that by

communication dated 06/10/2006 issued by the Education Officer (Secondary), Pune has approved the appointment of the Petitioner as a full time

librarian from that of part time librarian with effect from 01/04/2006. According to the Petitioner she has rendered 7 years, 9 months and 23 days

service as part time librarian and from 01/04/2006 till the date of her superannuation i.e. till 31/05/2018 she rendered 11 years and 2 months of service

as the full time librarian.Respondent No.3 Head Master forwarded the pension proposal of the Petitioner along with letter dated 26/02/1998. However,

by the impugned letter dated 07/03/2018 Respondent No.2 refused to accept the said pension proposal of the Petitioner forwarded by Respondent

No.3 on the ground that as the Petitioner was working as part time librarian from 08/06/1998 to 31/03/2006, the pension scheme cannot be made

applicable to the Petitioner. Hence this Petition for the relief adverted to herein above.

Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the approach of Respondent No.2 that since the Petitioner was working as part time

librarian from 08/06/1998 to 31/03/2006, the pension scheme cannot be made applicable to the Petitioner as the said part time service cannot be

considered for the purpose of considering the entitlement to the pension is erroneous. It is submitted that for the purpose of pension, gratuity and other

incidental benefits, the part time services rendered by the petitioner as part time librarian from 08/06/1998 till 31/06/2006 ought to have taken into

consideration, however, Respondent No.2 while passing the impugned order has completely overlooked the provisions of the Maharashtra Civil

Services Pension Rules 1982 as also the provisions of Government Resolution dated 30/10/2009.

The learned counsel for the Petitioner invites attention of this Court to the judgment of Division Bench of this Court (Bench at Aurangabad) (Coram

: S S Shinde and V K Jadhav, JJ) in the matter of Shalini w/o Asarm Akkarbote v/s. State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Department of School

Education & Sports & ors 2014(12) LJSoft 580 wherein this Court has referred its earlier judgments inJ ayshree Narayan Mhaske v/s State of

Maharashtra and ors. 2005 Bom. C.R. 382 and Shivappa Bhujangappa Bembale v/s State of Maharashtra and anr 2005 Bom. C.R.43,7 and submits

that this Court had an occasion to consider Rules 30 and 57 of the Pension Rules in aforesaid cases. He also submits that in similar facts situation and

in view of the decision of Division Bench of this court in Writ Petition No.8289 of 2013, this Court (Coram Anoop V Mohta and G S Kulkarni, JJ) by

order dated 19/09/2016, in the case of Sukhdev Bhimaji Shinde v/s The Superintendent, Pay & provident Fund Unit, Education Dept. Pune and ors. in

Writ Petition No.10424 of 2016, has disposed of the said Petition directing Respondent No.1 to decide the case of the Petitioner therein and take a

decision on the Pensionary benefits as early as possible preferably within a period of four months. He therefore submits the ratio laid down in the case

of Shalini Asaram Akkarbote’s case (supra) squarely applies to the facts of the present case. The learned counsel for the Petitioner therefore

submits that the Petition may be allowed.

On the other hand the learned AGP appearing for the Respondents/State invites attention to the provisions of Pension Rules and submits that the

benefit of Rule 54 of the Pension Rules cannot be extended to the Petitioner as she has rendered services as part time librarian from 08/06/1998 to

31/03/2006 and, therefore, the pension scheme cannot be made applicable to the Petitioner as the said part time service cannot be considered for the

purpose of considering the entitlement to the pension. The learned AGP lastly submits that the Petition deserves no consideration and it may be

rejected.

We have given careful consideration to the submissions advance by the learned counsel for the parties. We have also perused the pleadings in the

Petition, annexures thereto and the relevant Pension Rules as also the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. The facts of the

present case and the facts in the judgments cited are almost similar in nature. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the case of the present Petitioner

deserves to be considered in the light of the judgments of this Court referred to herein above.

In the case of Jayshree Narayan Mhaske (supra) and in the case of Shivappa Bembale (supra) this Court had an occasion to interprete Rule 57 and

other relevant Rules of Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. On the touchstone of the ratio laid down in the said two authorities, the

Division Bench of this Court in another judgment in the case of Shalini Asaram Akkarbote (supra) has elaborately dealt with the similar issue involved

therein. In Paragraphs 11 and 12 of the said judgment, it has been held by the Division Bench as under :-

“11. In the facts of the present case also, indisputably the petitioner herein has rendered services as part-time Librarian with respondent No.4

School from 24-08-1982 to 30-07-1997 and from 01-08-1997 as full time Librarian till the date of her superannuation i.e. 30-04-2004. Therefore, the

services rendered by the petitioner as a part time Librarian, half of the period of said services will have to be taken into consideration in addition to the

period for which the petitioner has worked as full time Librarian, and accordingly, the petitioner will have to be held entitled for the pensionary

benefits.

In the light of discussion herein above, we direct the respondent no.2 to consider the case of the present petitioner for giving her pensionary

benefits and to decide the same within three months from today and the necessary arrears which the petitioner is entitled, be accordingly paid. It is

made clear that the respondent No.3 will have to take decision and act in the light of discussion herein above and pass necessary orders. Rule is made

absolute in above terms and in terms of prayer clause “Câ€​ of the petition, which reads thus:-

(C) By issuing writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, respondents may kindly be directed to consider petitioner as an

eligible candidate for grant of pensionary benefits after considering half of her part time service as a qualifying service and they may be further

directed to take immediate steps for grant and release of all pensionary benefits, including arrears of pension, to the petition within stipulated period.â€​

In the facts of the present case also, indisputably the Petitioner had rendered services as part time librarian with the school referred herein above

from 08/06/1998 to 31/03/2006 and from 01/04/2007 as full time librarian till the date of her superannuation i.e. 31/05/2018. Therefore, the services

rendered by the Petitioner as a part time librarian, half of the period of said services will have to be taken into consideration in addition to the period

for which the Petitioner has worked as full time librarian. We are therefore of the opinion that the Petitioner will have to be held to be entitled for the

pensionary benefits.

In the light of the discussions herein above, Respondent No.2 needs to consider the case of the Petitioner as an eligible candidate for grant of

pensionary benefits after considering half of the part time service rendered by the her as a qualifying service and decide the same within a particular

time frame, and the necessary arrears of pension for which the Petitioner is entitled, be paid accordingly.

In that view of the matter the impugned order/letter dated 07/03/2018 issued by Respondent No.2 is quashed and set aside. Respondent No.2 is

directed to consider the case of the Petitioner accordingly and decide the same within a period of three months from today. The necessary pensionary

arrears for which the Petitioner is entitled, be paid accordingly. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid extent. The Petition is accordingly disposed of

keeping all the issues open.