ANIL SAHEBRAO GHARATEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE SECRETARY AND ORS

                                                                           6_WP_11288_2026.DOC



Prasad

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                          WRIT PETITION NO.11288 OF 2026

Anil Sahebrao Gharate                                                     ...Petitioner
       Versus
State Of Maharashtra
through the Secretary & Ors.                                              ...Respondents


                                             _______

Ms Pranita Pramod Hingmire, for the Petitioner.
Ms Nisha M. Mehra, AGP for Respondent - State.
                                             _______

                                  CORAM:          G. S. KULKARNI &
                                                  DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.

                                  DATE:           21st SEPTEMBER 2026

P.C.


1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 6 th May 2026 passed by the

Education Officer-Respondent No. 4, whereby the Petitioner has been denied the

benefits of the Old Pension Scheme and other pensionary benefits, on the ground

that his appointment was initially on a part-time aided post and, later, he was

appointed to a permanent full-time aided post as Librarian.


2. The prayer made in the petition is required to be noted, which reads thus:

         “a) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ, order or
         direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated
         06/05/2026 issued by Respondent No. 4 thereby refusing to grant the Old Pension Scheme
         and other pensionary benefits to the Petitioner.
         b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
         writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to consider
         half of the service rendered by the Petitioner as part-time librarian (from 01/02/1995 to


                                         Page 1 of 5
                                                                         6_WP_11288_2026.DOC



     31/03/2006) as qualifying service for computing pension and other pensionary benefits;
     c) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
     writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to reconsider
     and reprocess the claim of the Petitioner for grant of pension and other pensionary benefits
     within stipulated time;
     d) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
     writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to
     repay/refund to the Petitioner an amount of Rs. 7,37,800/- (Seven Lakhs Thirty Seven
     Thousand Eight Hundred only) along with interest accrued thereon which has been
     deducted towards Gratuity within stipulated time.
     e) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
     writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to
     repay/refund to the Petitioner an amount of Rs. 7,74,000/- (Seven Lakhs Seventy Four
     Thousand only) along with interest accrued thereon accumulated towards leave encashment
     within stipulated time.
     f) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
     writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to release the
     provisional pension to the Petitioner;
     g) for ad-interim and interim reliefs in terms of prayer clauses (c), (d), (e) and (f) above;
     h) for the cost of the petition;
     i) for such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.”

3. The Petitioner’s case is that he retired as full-time Librarian from Respondent

No. 6 School on 31 March 2026. He was initially appointed as Part-Time Librarian

in Janata Vidyalaya, Mulher, run by Dang Seva Mandal-Respondent No. 5, by

order dated 25 January 1995 w.e.f. 1 February 1995, and was reappointed for the

academic year 1996-97 by order dated 10 June 1996 w.e.f. 1 June 1996, his

services continuing thereafter w.e.f. 1 April 1998. He was transferred to Dr. Vijay

Bidarkar High School and Junior College-Respondent No. 6 School as part-time

librarian by order dated 22nd December 2004 w.e.f. 1 January 2005, and his post

was thereafter upgraded, he being appointed Full-Time Librarian in Respondent

No. 6 School w.e.f. 1 April 2006 by order dated 17 January 2007, approved by

Respondent No. 4 on 23 January 2007. He was later transferred to Janata

Vidyalaya, Abhona from 19 June 2012 to 14 July 2014, and again to Respondent

No. 6 School w.e.f. 15 July 2014, from where he retired on 31 March 2026.




                                      Page 2 of 5
                                                               6_WP_11288_2026.DOC



4. Respondent No. 4 had, by letter dated 14 February 2006, made the Old

Pension Scheme applicable to the Petitioner and opened his GPF account, regular

deductions being made thereto; his Provident Fund amount was returned to him in

April 2026, but gratuity of Rs. 7,37,800/- and leave encashment of Rs. 7,74,000/-

towards 300 pending leaves, together with interest accrued thereon, remain

unpaid. Respondent No. 6 forwarded the Petitioner’s pension case to Respondent

No. 4 on 19 December 2025. However, Respondent No. 4, by the impugned letter

dated 6 May 2026 (received by the Petitioner on 20 May 2026), informed

Respondent No. 6 that the Petitioner became a full-time Librarian only w.e.f. 1

April 2006 pursuant to approval granted by order dated 20 February 2007, and

that since he became full-time after 1 November 2005, the Old Pension Scheme

was not applicable to him.


5. Heard Ms Pranita P. Hingmire, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner,

who contended that the impugned order dated 6 May 2026 is illegal as the

Petitioner’s initial appointment was prior to 1 November 2005 and the Old

Pension Scheme shall apply to him. It is also submitted that this Court’s rulings in

Shivappa Bembele v. State of Maharashtra, Shalini Akkarbote, Darshana Gaikwad,

Prema Herkal and Vina Upasani squarely cover the issue. where similarly placed

librarians were granted pensionary benefits by counting part-time service. She thus

urged the Court to allow the petition.

6. The issue relating to the application of the Old Pension Scheme is no longer res

integra. In Dadasaheb Sada Kadam vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (Writ

Petition No.11651 of 2023) the Division Bench, considering the Maharashtra Civil


                                  Page 3 of 5
                                                                         6_WP_11288_2026.DOC



Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (“MCS (Pension) Rules”), Rule 19 of the

Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 and

a series of decisions in that regard, has taken the view that the benefit of part-time

service in the manner understood by Rule 57 of the Maharashtra Civil Services

(Pension) Rules is required to be granted. The relevant observations in that regard

are required to be noted, which read thus:

     “25.       A cumulative reading of the aforesaid rules would indicate that such rules
     have taken into consideration every possible situation in regard to the counting of
     qualifying services, which even includes an employee holding a temporary
     Government servant post rendered without interruption by confirmation, counting
     of service on contract etc. Also, in regard to the employees who are subsequently
     brought on a regular pensionable establishment by conversion of their posts, one-
     half of their previous continuous service is allowed to be counted for pension as
     provided under Note 1 to Rule 57 of the MCS (Pension) Rules.
     26. In our opinion, applying the aforesaid rules, necessarily the part-time service of
     the petitioner rendered from the year 1995 till 31 March 2006 (i.e. till his
     upgradation to the full-time post of librarian) was required to be reckoned for the
     purpose of considering his qualifying service for pension. Thus, notionally such
     service of 11 years (i.e. from 12 June 1995 till 31 March 2006) will be required to be
     counted/considered on applicability of Rule 57 of the MCS (Pension) Rules, read
     with Note 1 by taking into consideration half of such service i.e. period of
     approximately 5 years 4 months would be required to be notionally accepted and
     counted towards the petitioner's pensionable service and not from 01 April 2006 as
     contended by respondent nos. 3 and 4. Accordingly, the period of about more than 5
     years 4 months anterior to 31 March 2006 was required to be considered to calculate
     the qualifying service of the petitioner for grant of pension. This would bring about
     a situation that the petitioner had become eligible/qualified for pension from or
     about November 2000, which was certainly prior to the cutoff date 1 November
     2005.
     27.        If this be so, to say that the petitioner's qualifying service would be
     required to be taken into consideration from 01 April 2006 i.e. the date he was
     absorbed on the post of full-time librarian, would in fact become contrary to the
     provisions of the MCS (Pension) Rules as noted by us hereinabove and particularly
     of Rule 57, Note 1. Thus, in our clear opinion, the petitioner had become entitled
     for pension under the old pension scheme from the period in or about November
     2000.”


7. The learned AGP on behalf of the State would not dispute the aforesaid legal

position. We are thus of the opinion that the case of the Petitioner will be required



                                       Page 4 of 5
                                                                                         6_WP_11288_2026.DOC



                      to be taken into consideration by the respective Education Authorities for grant of

                      pension, applying the law laid down by this Court in the above-mentioned

                      judgment and grant the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme to the members of the

                      Petitioner who become eligible for such grant.

                      8. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, the order dated 6 th May 2026

                      issued by Respondent No.4 is set aside. The service rendered by the Petitioner as a

                      part-time librarian shall be taken into consideration, along with the entire service

                      rendered as a full-time librarian, for the purpose of qualifying service for

                      pensionary benefits. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are directed to submit the pension

                      proposal to Respondent No.4-Education Officer within a period of three weeks

                      from today, if not already submitted, and the concerned authorities are directed to

                      decide the same and take further steps to disburse the pension to the Petitioner

                      under the Old Pension Scheme within a period of two weeks thereafter. The

                      Petitioner is thus directed to be paid pension as per the rules.

                      9. Disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.




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


PRASAD
RAJENDRASING
RAJPUT

Digitally signed by
PRASAD
RAJENDRASING
RAJPUT
Date: 2026.09.28
18:27:06 +0530




                                                         Page 5 of 5