PARVATY RAVIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH DEP OF EDU AND ANR

         Digitally
         signed by
         PRASHANT                                                                                      11WP-1172-2025.DOC
PRASHANT VILAS
VILAS    RANE
RANE     Date:
         2026.10.08
         18:26:35
         +0530


                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                                                  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                                 WRIT PETITION NO.1172 OF 2025

                      Parvaty Ravi                                 ...Petitioner
                             Versus
                      The State of Maharashtra thr. Department
                      of Education and Anr.                        ...Respondents
                                                          _______
                      Mr. Mandar Soman, for Petitioner.
                      Ms. P. N. Diwan, AGP for the State.
                                                         _________
                                                        CORAM:     G. S. KULKARNI &
                                                                   Dr.NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.

                                                                 DATE:            06 October 2026.
                      P.C.


                      1.         We have heard Mr. Soman, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned

                      AGP for the State.

                      2.         This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is filed praying for the

                      following substantive reliefs:

                                 “a)      That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ,
                                 order/direction to quash and set aside the Communication no. 2021/23 dated
                                 20.01.2021 of Deputy Director of Education, Mumbai Division, Mumbai and
                                 further allow the proposal no. 1061 sent by the Educational Inspector, South Zone,
                                 Mumbai Central Mumbai-400008, dated 20.03.2014;
                                 (b)     that this Hon'ble Court further pleased to allow the Communication dated
                                 15.04.2013 of Educational Inspector, South Zone, Mumbai Central Mumbai-
                                 400008; and further directions to the Respondents to forthwith release pension
                                 benefits to the Petitioner as per the proposal dated 20.03.2014 sent by the
                                 Educational Inspector, South Zone, Mumbai Central Mumbai-400008;
                                 (c)      this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order
                                 /direction to the Respondents to consider the service period of from 13.06.1980 to
                                 30.04.20023 (sic. 30.04.2003) for commutation of pension;
                                 (d) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ,
                                 order/direction directing the Respondents to release arrears of the pension and its
                                 benefits with interest as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit;



                                                                 Page 1 of 3
                                                               6 October 2026
                      P.V.Rane
                                                                                  11WP-1172-2025.DOC




3.         The issue which has arisen for consideration in the present proceedings

pertains to the applicability of Rule 110(3) of the Maharashtra Civil Services

(Pension) Rules, 1982 (for short, “the Pension Rules”). On the earlier occasion,

i.e. on 18 August 2026, the Court, after hearing the learned Counsel for the

parties, had passed the following order::-

                “1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

                “2. The case of the Petitioner is that pension has been denied to her by the
                impugned communication dated 20th January 2021 (Exhibit 'G', Page 27).
                Our attention is drawn to Rule 110(3) of the Maharashtra Civil Services
                (Pension) Rules, 1982 ('the Pension Rules'), which provides that, in
                calculating the length of qualifying service, a fraction of a year equal to
                three months or more shall be treated as a completed one-half year (six
                months) and reckoned as qualifying service. It appears from the record,
                including the reading of the reply affidavit, that this aspect has not been
                taken into consideration.
                3. We, therefore, direct the concerned officer to consider the applicability of
                the said Rule and, after due consideration of the same, place on record the
                appropriate decision taken in that regard by filing an affidavit.
                4. was As this is the only issue and, prima-facie, we being satisfied that the
                Petitioner was falling short of only one month in regard to which also an
                extension granted by communication dated 15th April 2013 for the
                pensionable qualifying service, the issue in regard to the applicability of
                Rule 110(3) of the Pension Rules would be required to be taken into
                consideration.
                5. List the matter on 25th August 2026(F.O.B.).
                6. Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order.”



4.         In pursuance of the said order, the State Government is stated to have

taken a decision that the shortfall of one month of service can now be taken into

consideration for pensionable qualifying service in terms of the applicability of

Rule 110(3) of the Pension Rules. It is thus an undisputed position that the

Petitioner is entitled to pension. The question now is of the arrears of pension

payable to the petitioner. Mr. Soman would submit that the period from the date


                                          Page 2 of 3
                                        6 October 2026
P.V.Rane
                                                                        11WP-1172-2025.DOC



of retirement is a long period and the entitlement to interest to be paid on the

arrears payable to the petitioners ought to have been recognised at the date of the

petitioner’s retirement, however, the same is being recognised by the Respondents

from the period after this Court passed an order for payment of pension.

5.         In our opinion, the contention as urged on behalf of Mr. Soman is

legitimate. and needs to be accepted. The arrears payable to the petitioner are

required to be paid with an appropriate rate of interest. We accordingly dispose of

the petition, observing that the dispute in regard to the calculation of qualifying

service has stood resolved, and that, the petitioner has become entitled to pension

on the basis of her eligible service. The arrears of pension which shall be payable

from the date of her retirement, shall be calculated and paid to the petitioner

within a period of three weeks from today, with interest at the rate of 8% p.a..

6.         The petition stands partly allowed in the aforesaid terms. No costs.




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




                                      Page 3 of 3
                                    6 October 2026
P.V.Rane