DURGESH PANDIT HOLEversusTHE EDUCATION INSPECTOR (NORTH ZONE) BRIHANMUMBAI SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT AND ORS

           Digitally
           signed by
                                                                                       12-WP 1058926.DOC
           PRAJAKTA
PRAJAKTA   SAGAR
SAGAR      VARTAK
VARTAK     Date:
           2026.08.18
           13:08:52
           +0530



Prajakta Vartak

                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                     WRIT PETITION NO. 10589 OF 2026

           Durgesh Pandit Hole                                                   ...Petitioner
                 Vs
           The Education Inspector (North Zone) Brihanmumbai
           Secondary Education Department & Ors.                                 ...Respondents
                                           _________

           Mr. Saurabh Pakale with Mr. Nilesh Desai and i/b. Ms. Padmaja Malgaonkar for
           Petitioner.
           Ms. P. N. Diwan , AGP for State.
                                            __________

                                             CORAM:         G. S. KULKARNI &
                                                            DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
                                             DATE:          17 AUGUST 2026

           P.C.

           1.           We have heard learned counsel for the parties.


           2.           The grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that the petitioner

           has been denied the benefits under the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) and has

           instead been subjected to the Defined Contributory Pension Scheme

           (DCPS)/National Pension Scheme (NPS), by ignoring his 12 years of continuous,

           approved and 100% aided part-time service. The petitioner was appointed on

           part-time service with effect from 13 June 1996 and continued in such service till

           12 June 2008. It is the petitioner’s contention that, in terms of Note 1 to Rule 57

           of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, read with the

           Government Resolutions dated 31 January 2001 and 10 June 2005, 50% of his

           approved part-time service, i.e. 6 years, is required to be counted towards his


                                                    Page 1 of 6
                                                  17 August 2026
                                                                   12-WP 1058926.DOC



qualifying service. Consequently, the petitioner contends that, on reckoning 50%

of his part-time service, his qualifying service is required to be counted from a

date well prior to 31 October 2005, which is the cut-off date for applicability of

the DCPS. According to the petitioner, he is hence entitled to the benefits of the

Old Pension Scheme and cannot be subjected to the DCPS/NPS.


3.     Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the

averments as made in the petition to submit that, between 08 August 1994 to 30

April 1996, the petitioner was engaged as a part-time Assistant Teacher on ad-hoc

basis. Thereafter, a regular selection process was conducted by the respondent-

Management in accordance with Section 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of

Private Schools [Conditions of Service] Regulation Act, 1977 (“MEPS Act”).

Pursuant thereto, on 13 June 1996, the petitioner was appointed against a clear,

sanctioned and 100% aided part-time vacancy, and an appointment order to that

effect was issued in his favour.      The said appointment was approved by

respondent no.1 by an approval order dated 24 February 1997.


4.     It is the petitioner’s case that, accordingly, 1996 to 2008, he rendered

continuous, uninterrupted, and blemish-free part time service for 12 consecutive

years. During such period, his appointments were regularly renewed, and his

name was consistently included in the official Seniority Lists and Sanch Manyata

records approved by the Education Department.           The petitioner has also

contended that, till the academic year 2007-08, he was serving against a duly

sanctioned and approved 100% aided part-time post of Assistant Teacher in the


                                  Page 2 of 6
                                17 August 2026
                                                                                12-WP 1058926.DOC



Trained Graduate Scale. During the said period, a sanctioned full-time workload

became available in the school pursuant to the approved staffing pattern. The

petitioner’s position was recognized by the Management and, accordingly, he was

granted the regular pay scale. The petitioner superannuated on 30 June 2026.

He has stated that, having recently retired after rendering 32 years of service, he is

entitled to pension under Old Pension Scheme.


5.     In the aforesaid circumstances, Mr. Pakale, learned counsel for the

petitioner, would submit that the case of the petitioner is covered by several

decisions of this Court wherein the issue of counting part-time service has been

considered. Our attention is drawn, in this regard, to the decision in Jyoti Prakash

Chougule vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Writ Petition No. 2354 of 2012,

decided on 07 January 2014). Our attention is also drawn to the recent decision

in Ashok Kakasaheb Chaugule vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Writ Petition No.

3368 of 2022, decided on 27 March, 2025), wherein this Court considered four

decisions on the identical issue. The relevant observations of the Court to the

effect that part-time services is required to be counted as part of the total

qualifying service, are required to be noted which read thus:-

       “6.     The learned AGP has vehemently opposed this Petition and
       submits that neither any prayer put forth by the Petitioner can be
       considered, nor can it be said that the Petitioner is entitled for the Old
       Pension Scheme. He submits that the service of the Petitioner as a part-
       time Assistant Teacher, is of no consequence. He was not paid from the
       contingency fund. The exceptions to Rule 30 as prescribed under Rule
       57 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 would be
       squarely applied to this case.

       7.      He further raises an objection as regards the service of the
       Petitioner on part-time basis with two establishments. His contention is
       that the benefit of having worked with Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 from


                                       Page 3 of 6
                                     17 August 2026
                                                                          12-WP 1058926.DOC



27th August, 1986 to 28th August, 2007 as a part-time Assistant
Teacher, is not to be given to him. There is an overlapping period of
employment as a part-time Assistant Teacher when the Petitioner
worked with Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 from July, 1991 till February,
2007 and with Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 from July, 1991 till February,
2007. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that the
Petitioner would not claim any benefit of the service rendered as a part-
time Assistant Teacher with Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, from August,
1986 till February, 2007. He would rely on his part-time service as an
Assistant Teacher with Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 from 17th July, 1991
until 15th June, 2007, when he became full-time Assistant Teacher.

8.       The issue before us is, as to whether the part-time service of the
Petitioner with Respondent Nos. 6 and 7, can be added to the extent of
50% of the said service, to the full-time tenure of the Petitioner (which
is of about 10 years, 11 months and 15 days).

9.      We find that the Petitioner’s contention is fortified by the law
laid down by this Court in Jyoti Prakash Chougule (supra) wherein this
Court recorded that as the Petitioner was a full-time Assistant Teacher
when she retired, after putting in 8 years and 7 months service, the
earlier period as a part-time Assistant Teacher, could be added to the
extent of 50%, for considering whether the Petitioner was eligible for
pension.

10.     Similar is the view taken by this Court in Shalini w/o Asaram
Akkarbote (supra), wherein this Court recorded that the Petitioner was
appointed as a part-time Librarian on 14th June, 1982 and she was
granted continuation and permanency with an approval with effect from
1st August, 1997, when the post was converted into full-time service.
Since she was granted full-time Librarian appointment and she
superannuated as a permanent employee, this Court added the part-
time service to the extent of 50 % to her full-time tenure for calculating
qualified service. Same is the view taken by this Court in the matter of
Anagha Ashok Bhombe (supra). Same is also the view taken by this
Court in Smt. Darshana wd/o Adikrao Gaikwad (supra).

11.     Keeping in view the above aspect and the law crystallized by this
Court in the above cited orders, we find that the Petitioner can be given
the advantage to the extent of 50% of his tenure of part-time Assistant
Teacher from 17th July, 1991 till 15 th June, 2007. It is to the extent of
around 8 years of service (50% of 16 years of the service as a part-time
Assistant Teacher). This is to be added with the period of 10 years, 11
months and 15 days of permanent full-time service as an Assistant
Teacher. In any case, the Petitioner was entitled for the pension. The
issue would be that he would have entitled for 50% pension, by virtue
of the full time employment alone.

12.      We have considered the law laid down by this Court in
Jayashree Narayan Mhaske vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2005 (3)
MLJ 5492), Shivappa Bhujangappa Bembale vs. State of Maharashtra
and Anr. ( 2005 (3) Mh. L.J. 709 and Mukund Bapurao Dhadkar vs.
State of Maharashtra and anr. (2016 (3) MLJ, 280).

13.     It is beyond debate that when a person is granted regularization

                                Page 4 of 6
                              17 August 2026
                                                                                   12-WP 1058926.DOC



       in employment, the same relates back to the date of his employment
       even as a temporary, if retirement benefits are to be computed.
       Considering the various reports cited before us, in identical fact
       situation, the employees who were on full-time posts at the time of their
       superannuation, were granted benefits of the earlier part-time service to
       the extent of 50%.

       14.     Considering the GR dated 31st October, 2005, clause (4) is
       indicative of the fact that the employee who was otherwise eligible for
       pension, should have been appointed in the service of a full aided
       establishment, prior to 1st November, 2005. The defined contributory
       pension scheme would be applicable to the candidates who have been
       appointed on or after 1st November, 2005. The facts before us have
       already been adverted to in the forgoing paragraphs leaving no room for
       doubt and we have no hesitation in concluding that the Petitioner
       would be entitled for the Old Pension Scheme.

       15.     Hence, this Petition is allowed. The impugned Communication
       dated 22nd June, 2018 issued by Respondent No.2 refusing pension to
       the Petitioner, is quashed and set aside. We direct Respondent No.2 to
       consider the case of the Petitioner as being eligible for pension as per
       the Old Pension Scheme. Respondent No.2 shall pass a formal order
       approving the pension as per the Old Pension Scheme, within a period
       of 15 days from today.

       16.      Needless to state, the arrears of pension shall be calculated and
       by including the interest component statutorily prescribed for the
       delayed payment, which would also be a part of the arrears of a pension.
       Let the arrears along with interest be paid within a period of 45 days
       from today. Let the payment of regular pension commence on monthly
       basis after 45 days. For the said purpose, Respondent Nos. 6 and 7
       would forward the proposal of the Petitioner for arrears of pension,
       interest and regular pension, within 21 days from today. Needless to
       state, the Petitioner would be entitled for all service benefits available to
       a retired employee, in the light of the aforesaid conclusion.

       17.     Rule is made absolute in the above terms.”



6.     Learned AGP would not dispute that the proceedings would, in fact, stand

covered by the said decisions.


7.     In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the impugned order

dated 01 December 2025, rejecting the petitioner’s proposal seeking condonation

of the break in service of the Assistant Teacher for pensionary purposes, cannot be

sustained.

                                        Page 5 of 6
                                      17 August 2026
                                                                       12-WP 1058926.DOC



8.     The petition is accordingly required to be allowed.          It is accordingly

allowed in terms of the following order:-


                                       ORDER

i.     The impugned communication dated 01 December 2025 issued by
respondent no.2 is quashed and set aside.

ii.    Respondent no.2 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner as
being eligible for pension as per the Old Pension Scheme and pass a
formal order approving the pension as per the Old Scheme, within a
period of 15 days from today.

iii.   The arrears of pension shall be calculated by including the interest
component statutorily prescribed for the delayed payment, which would
also be a part of the arrears of a pension.

iv.    The arrears along with interest be paid within a period of 45 days
from today.

v.     The payment of regular pension shall be commenced on monthly
basis within a period of one month from today in regard to which a
proposal be forwarded within a period of 10 days from today.

vi.    The petitioner shall also be entitled for all service benefits available
to a retired employee, in the light of the aforesaid conclusion.

vii.   The petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. No costs.




(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.)                                   (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)




                                    Page 6 of 6
                                  17 August 2026