Bombay High Court
PRATIBHA SUHAS GOGATEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH PRIN. SECRETARY DEPT. OF SCHOOL, EDU. AND SPORTS AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The petition is allowed; the petitioner is entitled to pension under the Old Pension Scheme with one‑half of her part‑time service counted towards qualifying service.
Summary
The petitioner, a retired full‑time librarian, sought direction under Article 226 to have her pension calculated under the Old Pension Scheme, contending that her earlier part‑time service from July 1994 should be counted at half‑rate towards qualifying service. She retired on 30 November 2013, having been appointed full‑time on 24 December 2004, which is before the cut‑off date of 1 November 2005 for the Defined Contribution Pension System. The State acknowledged that her full‑time appointment fell before the cut‑off and argued that, per Rule 57 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, half of her prior part‑time service could be credited. Relying on the Full Bench decision in Deshmukh Dilipkumar Bhagwan vs. State of Maharashtra, the Court held that the half‑service rule applies and ordered the pension to be granted accordingly. The Court directed that arrears be paid within four weeks with 8% interest and that the management resubmit the pension proposal if necessary.
Issues considered
- Whether part‑time service rendered before conversion to a full‑time post can be counted, at half‑rate, towards qualifying service for the Old Pension Scheme.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to pension benefits under the Old Pension Scheme despite the introduction of the Defined Contribution Pension System in 2005.
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 — s. Rule 57
Subjects
- Old Pension Scheme
- part‑time service
- pension entitlement
- Rule 57
- Article 226
- writ of mandamus
- arrears of pension
- Maharashtra civil service
Judgment
15.WP14296_2024.DOC
2026:BHC-AS:37757-DB
Vidya Amin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 14296 OF 2024
Pratibha Suhas Gogate … Petitioner
Vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents
__________
Mr. Ajit J. Kenjale a/w. Sai Rajendra Kadam for the petitioner.
Mrs. Nisha M. Mehra, AGP for the State.
__________
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
DATE: 8 SEPTEMBER, 2026.
P.C.
1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, heard finally.
2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed for
the following substantive reliefs:
“a) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to
consider the petitioner’s case for application of the old pension scheme by
considering commencement of qualifying services from the date of initial
appointment on part time basis and for which one half of that service be
calculated towards the applicability of the pension benefits to the petitioner.
b) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct to forthwith take
action on the petitioner’s representation dated 14.9.2020 and 9.12.2020 and
further to take decision on the letter dated 17.6.2021 to respondent no. 2 –
Divisional Deputy Director, Education, Mumbai Division, Mumbai.
c) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to exercise its power vested in it
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and issue a writ of mandamus
or by any other writ to direct respondent no. 2 to 5 to consider
commencement of qualifying service for old pension and general provident
fund scheme benefits of the petitioner from the initial date of appointment on
part time basis and one half of that service needs to be calculated towards
their pension benefits.
d) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to exercise its power vested in it under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India and issue a writ of mandamus or by
any other writ to direct the Respondent nos.2 to 5 to consider that the present
petitioner is entitled to pay fixation, time bound promotion, old pension
Page 1 of 4
8 September, 2026
15.WP14296_2024.DOC
scheme and general provident fund benefits without any arrears calculated
from the date when the respective school of the petitioner attained the
strength of 1000 students.”
3. The case of the petitioner is that having retired as a full-time Librarian, she
was entitled to the grant of pension under the Old Pension Scheme, her
appointment being prior to the cut-off date of 1 November, 2005, i.e., prior to
the Defined Contribution Pension System (DCPS) being made applicable by the
Government Resolution dated 31 October, 2005.
4. The relevant facts, which are not in dispute, are required to be noted: The
petitioner came to be appointed as a part time Librarian on 1 July, 1994 on an
aided post with St. Lawrence High School, Santacruz (W). She continued on the
said post for almost 10 years. On 24 December, 2004, she was appointed as a
full-time Librarian on an aided post. She superannuated on 30 November, 2013.
It is her case that she ought to have granted the benefit of the Old Pension
Scheme, as her appointment as a full-time Librarian was prior to the cut-off date
of 1 November, 2005. In any event, her contention is that her services as a part-
time Librarian with effect from 1 July, 1994 would also enure to her benefit.
5. Although a reply affidavit has been filed to the petition, Ms. Mehra,
learned AGP, on instructions, submits that the petitioner would be correct in her
contention that her appointment to the post as full-time Librarian was itself prior
to the cut off date of 1 November, 2005, i.e., on 24 December, 2004. She
submits that, having regard to the prior service rendered by the petitioner as a
part-time Librarian with effect from 1 July, 1994, the petitioner would be entitled
Page 2 of 4
8 September, 2026
15.WP14296_2024.DOC
to the grant of pension under the Old Pension Scheme. We may observe that the
law in this regard is well settled. We refer to the judgment of the Full Bench of
this Court in Deshmukh Dilipkumar Bhagwan vs. State of Maharashtra 1, that
even otherwise the part-time service would be required to be taken into
consideration in accordance with the provisions of Rule 57 of the The
Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, which is as under:
57. Non-pensionable service. As exceptions to Rule 30, the following are not in
pensionable service :-
(a) Government servants who are paid for work done for Government but
whose whole-time is not retained for the public service,
(b) Government servants who are not in receipt of pay but are
remunerated by honoraria,
(c) Government servants who are paid from contingencies,
(d) Government servants holding posts which have been declared by the
authority which created them to be non-pensionable,
(e) Holders of all tenure posts in the Medical Department, whether private
practice is allowed to them or not, when they do not have an active or
suspended lien on any other permanent posts under Government.
Note 1.-In case of employees paid from contingencies who are subsequently
brought on a regular pensionable establishment by conversion of their posts,
one-half of their previous continuous service shall be allowed to count for
pension.
Note 2. In the case of persons who were holding the posts of attendants prior to
1st April, 1966, one-half of their previous continuous service as attendants,
shall be allowed to count for pension.”
6. In this view of the matter, considering the fair stand taken on behalf of the
respondent, we are inclined to allow this petition by setting aside the decision of
denying pensionary benefits to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner
had earlier discharged duties as a part-time Librarian from 1 July, 1994 to 24
December, 2004. The petition is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).
1 2019(3)Mh.L.J. 903
Page 3 of 4
8 September, 2026
15.WP14296_2024.DOC
7. The arrears of pension shall be credited to the petitioner’s account as
expeditiously as possible and, in any event, within a period of four weeks from the
date the copy of this order is made available, with interest at the rate of 8% p.a.
8. Needless to observe that, in the event the petitioner’s proposal for pension
is required to be resubmitted, the Management shall resubmit the same, if not
already submitted, within a period of one week from today. No costs.
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
Signed by: Vidya S. Amin Page 4 of 4
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge 8 September, 2026
Date: 16/09/2026 13:54:20
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.