Bombay High Court
SUVARNA ANAND SURYAWANSHIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THRU ITS SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPT. AND ORS
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The petition is allowed; the petitioner is entitled to benefits under the Old Pension Scheme and the respondents must recompute and pay the dues.
Summary
The petitioner, Suvarna Anand Suryawanshi, was appointed to a government post before 1 November 2005 and contended that she should be governed by the Old Pension Scheme rather than the Deemed Continuation of Pension (DCPC) Scheme introduced on 31 October 2005. She claimed that despite a prior court finding confirming her pre‑2005 appointment, the respondents had failed to pay her pension dues. The Court examined the earlier order dated 30 November 2018 and the citations in Exhibit‑E, which collectively supported the petitioner’s claim. It held that the appointment date indeed qualified her for the Old Pension Scheme and that the respondents were obligated to recompute and pay the benefits accordingly. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, the respondents were directed to settle the arrears, and the petition was disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether an employee appointed before 1 November 2005 is entitled to benefits under the Old Pension Scheme and not the DCPC Scheme.
- Whether the respondents are liable to recompute and pay the pension arrears to the petitioner under the Old Pension Scheme.
Subjects
- Old Pension Scheme
- DCPC Scheme
- appointment date
- pension arrears
- service law
- writ petition
Judgment
8. CIVIL WP-10219-2022.odt
Amberkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 10219 OF 2022
Suvarna Anand Suryawanshi .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Vikram Patil i/by Mr. Govind S. Solanke, Advocates for
Petitioner
Mr. S.H. Kankal, AGP for Respondents - State and its functionaries
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV &
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : JUNE 22, 2026
P. C.:
1. Heard Mr. Patil, learned Advocate for Petitioner and Mr. Kankal,
learned AGP for Respondent - State and its functionaries.
2. On 15.06.2026, this Court passed the following order:-
“1. Prima facie, looking at the principal prayer pleaded by the Petitioner
in the present case, petition stands worked out in view of the finding
returned in paragraph no.11 of the order dated 30th November 2018, copy
of which is appended at Page No.55. Similar orders are appended at page
49 onwards below Exhibit-E collectively which, inter alia cover the case of
present Petitioner.
2. Grievance of the Petitioner is that despite the fact that a finding is
returned by the Court that their appointment has been made prior to 1st
November 2005 in view of which they will be covered by the Old Pension
Scheme and not by DCPC scheme introduced by the notification dated 31st
October 2005, the Petitioner is made to run from pillar to post and till date
they have not been paid their dues.
3. Learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner submits that
Petitioner’s case before the Court is covered by the citations placed at page
no.49 onwards. He submits that details of the Petitioner are given in the
petition and her appointment order is also appended to the petition.
1 of 2
8. CIVIL WP-10219-2022.odt
4. Orders which are appended at Exhibit-E collectively would prima
facie cover the Petitioner’s case fully as per the ratio in the above citation.
5. Learned AGP shall take instructions and apprise the Court on the
next date when the Court will take up the matter for passing appropriate
orders qua the Petitioner before this Court.
6. Stand over to 22nd June 2026 (First on Board).”
3. Learned AGP affirms the fact that appointment of Petitioner is
prior to 01.11.2005 in view of the documents appended at Exh. A
colly. to the Petition. In that view of the matter, Petitioner would be
entitled to the benefit under the Old Pension Scheme and shall not be
covered by DCPC Scheme introduced by virtue of Notification dated
31.10.2005. Petitioner’s case otherwise having been covered by the
citations which are appended at page No. 49 onwards of Petition,
present Petition stands allowed in terms of prayer clauses (b), (c) and
(d).
4. Respondent No. 4 is directed to comply with the aforesaid order
as expeditiously as possible and recompute and recalculate the
benefits payable to the Petitioner in accordance with law.
5. With the above directions, Writ Petition is allowed and disposed.
[ NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J. ] [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Amberkar
2 of 2
Checking your session…