Bombay High Court
ARUNA SHANKARRAO SURYAWANSHI ALIAS ARUNA EKNATH KHAIRNARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. ITS FINANCE DEPARTMENT AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Rejected
Holding
The petition is dismissed as the petitioner was not appointed in a manner recognised by law before 1 November 2005 and an honorary appointment does not create a pension right.
Summary
The petitioner, Aruna Suryawanshi, claimed entitlement to a pension under the Old Pension Scheme, asserting that she had served as an honorary teacher before being regularized on 13 February 2006. She argued that her honorary service should be treated as a recognized appointment prior to the cut‑off date of 1 November 2005, making her eligible under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. The Court noted that no documentary evidence was produced to show any appointment before the cut‑off date, and that an honorary appointment does not confer a legal right to pension under the said Rules. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner was not appointed in a manner recognised by law before 1 November 2005. The petition was therefore dismissed without costs.
Issues considered
- Whether an honorary appointment confers a right to pension under the Old Pension Scheme.
- Whether the petitioner was appointed before the statutory cut‑off date of 1 November 2005.
- Whether the absence of documentary evidence precludes the claim for pension.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- pension
- Old Pension Scheme
- honorary appointment
- regular appointment
- cut‑off date
- Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules
- employment law
Judgment
15-WP-18154-2024.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 18154 OF 2024
Aruna Shankarrao Suryawanshi
Alias Aruna Eknath Khairnar ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of Maharashtra
Thr. Its Finance Department & Ors. ...Respondents
_______
Mr. Govind Solanke for Petitioner.
Mr. V. M. Mali, AGP for Respondent-State.
Mr. Subhash V. Gutte for Respondent Nos. 4 & 5.
_______
AJIT
RAMESH
PATHRIKAR
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
Digitally signed by
AJIT RAMESH
PATHRIKAR
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
Date: 2026.09.07
20:28:13 +0530 DATE: 07th SEPTEMBER 2026
P.C.
1. We have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner.
2. It is the Petitioner’s case that, prior to her absorption, she was working as a
Teacher on an honorary basis. Thereafter, she was absorbed and issued a regular
appointment Order dated 13th February 2006. There is, however, no document
annexed to the petition showing that the Petitioner was appointed on an honorary
basis prior to her appointment on 13th February 2006. The Petitioner's claim is for
grant of pension under the Old Pension Scheme, by applicability of the
Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. The Petitioner would be entitled
for the pension under the Old Pension Scheme only if she was appointed in a
manner recognised by law prior to 1 st November 2005. Thus, the appointment of
the Petitioner as a regular Teacher itself is post the cut-off date of 1 st November
2005.
Page 1 of 2
Ajit
15-WP-18154-2024.DOC
3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner is unable to point out any document
evidencing the Petitioner’s appointment, if any, prior to 1 st November 2005, which
could at all considered under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982,
read with Rule 19 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of
Service) Rules, 1981.
4. In this view of the matter, we do not find that any honorary appointment
would confer any legal right upon the Petitioner for any entitlement under the Old
Pension Scheme.
5. The petition is accordingly rejected. No costs.
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
Page 2 of 2
Ajit
Checking your session…