Bombay High Court
CHANDRAKANT JERAMBHAI SANGHAVIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE SECRETARY AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Rejected
Holding
The court held that the petitioner is not entitled to condonation of breaks in service and his past service cannot be counted for pension, thereby rejecting the writ petition.
Summary
The petitioner, a retired teacher, filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking to have his breaks in service condoned and his past employment counted to qualify for pension and retirement benefits. He alleged continuous employment despite multiple stints with various schools, some under private management, and argued that his service at Sanskardham Junior College and Sheth D. J. Highschool should be considered. The court noted that the grievance was raised fourteen years after his superannuation and that no prior permission was obtained to preserve past service upon resignation, as required by Rule 46(2) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. The court found no legal right for the petitioner to have his breaks in service condoned or his past service counted, and held that the resignation led to forfeiture of past service. Consequently, the writ petition was rejected and no relief was granted.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to condonation of breaks in service and inclusion of past employment for pension eligibility under Rule 46(2) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982.
- Whether a petition filed under Article 226 after superannuation can be entertained for relief concerning pension benefits.
- Whether resignation without prior permission results in forfeiture of past service under the applicable pension rules.
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 — s. 46(1), 46(2)
Subjects
- pension
- continuity of service
- resignation
- forfeiture of service
- Article 226
- Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules
- condonation of break in service
- retirement benefits
Judgment
8-WP-17041-2024.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 17041 OF 2024
Chandrakant Jerambhai Sanghavi ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
_______
Mr. Vinayak Kumbhar a/w Rajendra Khaire i/b Ashwini N. Bandiwadekar for
Petitioner.
Ms. Nisha M. Mehra, AGP for Respondent-State.
Mr. Mohammed i/b Kunal R. Maskar for Respondent Nos. 4 & 5.
_______
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
DATE: 31st AUGUST 2026
P.C.
1. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking
the following substantive reliefs:
“a] Rule Nisi be issued and records and proceedings be called for.
b] By a suitable writ, order or direction, the impugned orders dated
22.11.2023 and 7.5.2018 passed by the Respondent No. 1 may kindly be
set aside, and accordingly the Respondent No. 1 may be directed to
condone the break in service of the Petitioner in accordance with the
proposal submitted by the Respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 3.12.2016,
and to sanction all the retirement benefits to the Petitioner such as
retirement pension, gratuity, etc., together with arrears of pension from
1.11.2008 onwards.
c] Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Writ Petition, the
Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 may be directed to pay the provisional pension to
the Petitioner having retired as a teacher on 31.10.2008.”
2. We find that the basic grievance of the Petitioner is that he has not been
held eligible for grant of pension, which he claims on the ground that he was
Page 1 of 5
Ajit
8-WP-17041-2024.DOC
continuously in employment, although under different managements.
3. It appears from the record that the Petitioner changed his employment on
several occasions from the year 1975 till his retirement on 31 st October 2008. The
details of his different employments are set out in the reply affidavit filed on behalf
of Respondent No.1-State of Shri Tushar Vasantrao Mahajan, Deputy Secretary to
the State Government in the office of School, Education and Sports Department.
The said affidavit is an exhaustive affidavit. In paragraph 3 thereof, the following
details of the Petitioner’s employment have been set out:
Sr. Name of School Aided/ Period of service Break in service Reason for break
No. unaided in service
1 Shri. A.A. aided 17/11/1975 11/06/1976 to Terminated due
Bhimji Vidya, to 12/07/1976 to insufficient
Matunga 10/06/1976 1 month 2 days qualification
6 months 14 days
2 Shri. V. C. aided 13/07/1976 14/06/1977 to Terminated due
Gurukula to 12/6/1978 to insufficient
Highschool, 13/06/1977 11 months 29 days qualification.
Ghatkopar, 11 months
Mumbai
3 Central Railway aided 13/06/1978 1/05/1984 to Resigned as per
Employees Jr. to 9/07/1985 the report
Coll. Parel, 30/04/1984 1 year 2 months received from
Mumbai 5 years 10 months 09 days School.
17 days
4 N.G.A & D.K. aided 10/07/1985 21/04/1986 to Terminated due
Marathe Vidya, to 3/07/1988 to insufficient
Chembur, 20/04/1986 2 years 2 months qualification
Mumbai 9 months 10 days 13 days
5 L. A Raheja Aided 4/07/1988 to 21/04/1989 to Terminated due
College 20/04/1989 24/08/1990 to insufficient
Santacruz, 9 months 16 days 1 year 4 monhts 4 qualification
Mumbai days
6 N. G. A & D. K. aided 25/08/1990 21/04/1991 Terminated due
Marathe Vidya, to to 24/08/1990 to insufficient
Chembur 20/04/1991 qualification
9 months 16 days 06/09/1991
4 months 16 days
7 Mithibai College aided 7/09/1991 to 1/05/1992 to Terminated due
Page 2 of 5
Ajit
8-WP-17041-2024.DOC
Vileparle, 30/04/1992 22/07/1992 to insufficient
Mumbai qualification
7 monhts 23 days 2 months 22 days
8 Sanskardham Jr. aided 23/07/1992 11/03/2001 toResigned as per
Coll. Goregaon, to 30/04/2006 the report
Mumbai 10/03/2001 received from
5 years 1 months School.
8 years 7 months 15 21 days
days
9 Sheth D. J. aided 1/05/2006 to Superannuated
Highschool 31/10/2008
Malad, Mumbai
2 years 6 months
4. The case of the Petitioner is that his tenure of service with Sanskardham
Junior College, Goregaon, Mumbai (Item No.8 supra) from the year 1992 to 2001
and his subsequent employment, after his resignation from Sanskardham Junior
College, with Sheth D. J. Highschool Malad, Mumbai, from 1 st May 2026 till his
retirement on 31st October 2008, have not been taken into consideration and if the
same is taken into consideration, he would become eligible for pension.
5. At the outset, we may observe that, if any issue in regard to continuity of
service was to be asserted by the Petitioner, more particularly when the Petitioner
retired on 31st October 2008, the Petitioner ought to have agitated the grievance
during the tenure of his active service i.e., at the relevant time. The present petition
itself has been filed in the year 2024.
6. We find that the Petitioner’s earlier service be taken into consideration,
which was not liable for forfeiture, is being raised for the first time after his
superannuation.
7. In our opinion, the Petitioner’s grievance has been appropriately informed
to the Petitioner by the impugned communication dated 22 nd November 2023,
Page 3 of 5
Ajit
8-WP-17041-2024.DOC
which itself is on a representation dated 4 th October 2022, made about 14 years
after the Petitioner being superannuated.
8. We find that Rule 46(1) and (2) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension)
Rules, 1982, provides for forfeiture of service on resignation. Rule 46(1) and (2) of
the Rules of 1982 reads thus:
“46. Forfeiture of service on resignation
(1) Resignation from a service or a post entails forfeiture of past
service.
(2) A resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service if it has been
submitted to take up, with proper permission, another appointment, whether
temporary or permanent under the Government where service qualifies.”
9. Thus, Sub-rule (2) (supra) categorically provides that resignation shall not
entail forfeiture of past service if it has been submitted to take up, with proper
permission, another appointment, whether temporary or permanent under the
Government where service qualifies. We find that there is no averment as also there
is no material on record that, when the Petitioner resigned from Sanskardham
Junior College, Goregaon, Mumbai on 11 th March 2001, he had obtained prior
approval for his past service to be taken into consideration without forfeiture and
thereafter accepted another appointment at Sheth D. J. Highschool, Malad.
Mumbai.
10. Thus, in our opinion, the Petitioner has not demonstrated any legal right
available to the Petitioner, in respect of his several services under private
managements which, in fact, were also terminated for different reasons as set out
hereinabove.
Page 4 of 5
Ajit
8-WP-17041-2024.DOC
11. Thus, there is no case made out for any condonation of the breaks in
service. We cannot accept any argument which would, in fact, be contrary to the
Rules and/or would amount to a breach of the said Rules. Thus, having perused the
record and also the detailed affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government, we
are not inclined to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India to grant any relief as prayed for by the Petitioner.
12. The Writ Petition is accordingly rejected.
13. Disposed of. No costs.
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
Digitally
signed by
AJIT
AJIT RAMESH
RAMESH PATHRIKAR
PATHRIKAR Date:
2026.09.02
10:50:09
+0530
Page 5 of 5
Ajit
Checking your session…