Bombay High Court
SANDEEP DADASAHEB PERANEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court held that the petitioner is governed by the Old Pension Scheme and is entitled to the reliefs sought under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 and related rules.
Summary
The petition filed by Sandeep D. Perane, an assistant teacher appointed before 1 Nov 2005, sought a declaration that he is governed by the Old Pension Scheme and that his part‑time service be counted with full‑time service for pension benefits, along with extension of pension benefits, allocation of a General Provident Fund (GPF) account and recovery of any deductions. The High Court observed that the issue is squarely covered by its earlier decision in Vijay S. Shedage (Dr.) vs. State of Maharashtra, 2026 DGLS (Bom.) 2043. Relying on that precedent, the Court held that the petitioner falls within the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 and the related Commutation of Pension Rules, 1984. Consequently, the Court granted reliefs B to E, directing the respondents to recognize the Old Pension Scheme, count part‑time service, extend pension benefits, open a GPF account and refund any amounts deducted. The writ petition was allowed in its entirety.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner, appointed before 01‑Nov‑2005, is governed by the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (Old Pension Scheme).
- Whether part‑time service rendered before and after 31‑Oct‑2005 should be counted together with full‑time service for pension benefits.
- Whether the pensionary benefits can be extended to the petitioner under the 1982 and 1984 Rules.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to a General Provident Fund account and refund of deductions made by the respondents.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- pension
- old pension scheme
- part‑time service
- General Provident Fund
- writ of mandamus
- Maharashtra Civil Services Rules
- assistant teachers
- jurisprudence
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:42640-DB
{1} 51-wp-12030-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
51 WRIT PETITION NO. 12030 OF 2026
Sandeep Dadasaheb Perane
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
...
Mr. Arvind Gopalrao Ambetkar, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. S.R. Wakle, AGP for State
.......
CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
DATE : 15th SEPTEMBER, 2026
PER COURT :
1. Indisputably, the issue raised in this petition is squarely covered
by the decision of this Court in the case of Vijay S. Shedage (Dr.) vs.
State of Maharashtra, 2026 DGLS (Bom.) 2043.
2. For the reasons stated in the said order, the writ petition is
allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’ and ‘E’, which are as
follows:
“B) By issuing a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ,
order or directions in the like nature, this Hon'ble Court
may kindly be pleased to hold and declare that, the
petitioners are governed under the Old Pension Scheme
i.e. Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982
Maharashtra Civil Services (Commutation of Pension)
Rules, 1984 and General Provident Fund, which are
applicable to the Assistant Teachers, who are appointed
prior to 01/11/2005.
{2} 51-wp-12030-2026
C) By issuing a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ,
order or directions in the like nature this Hon'ble Court
may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to
consider/count the Part-Time service with Full-Time
service of the petitioner for receive benefit under Old
Pension Scheme, which is/ was spend by the petitioner
with school/ college before and after cutoff date i.e.
31st October, 2005.
D) By issuing a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ,
order or directions in the like nature this Hon'ble Court
may kindly be be pleased to direct the respondents to
extend the pensionary benefits as admissible under the
Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 and
Maharashtra Civil Services (Commutation of Pension)
Rules, 1984.
E) By issuing a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ,
order or directions in the like nature this Hon'ble Court
may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to allot
the General Provident Fund Account (GPF Account) to
the petitioner and thereafter, the Educational
Institution to deduct the amount of monthly
compensation/installment from the monthly salary of
the petitioner and deposit the same in the said GPF
account.”
3. If the petitioner is found entitled for the amounts deducted by
the respondents, the shall be refunded to the petitioner.
(ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)
Bhagyawant Punde
Checking your session…