BHAUSAHEB SHAANKARRAO JONDHALEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THOR. THE SECRETARY SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

                                                                 9-WP-5290-2025.DOC



              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                      WRIT PETITION NO. 5290 OF 2025


Bhausaheb Shaankarrao Jondhale                                 ...Petitioner
      Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                                ...Respondents
                                       _______
Mr. Vinayak Kumbhar a/w Rajendra Khaire i/b Ashwini N. Bandiwadekar for
Petitioner.

Mr. Aditya R. Deolekar, AGP for Respondent-State.
                                       _______

                            CORAM:          G. S. KULKARNI &
                                            DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.

                            DATE:           31st AUGUST 2026

P.C.

1.     Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of all the parties,

the matter is taken up for final hearing.

2.     By this petition, the Petitioner seeks a declaration that he is entitled to be

governed under the old pension scheme, i.e., under the provisions of the

Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982; the MCS (Commutation of

Pension) Rules, 1984; and the provisions of the Maharashtra General Provident

Fund Scheme. The Petitioner also seeks a direction to the Respondents to allot a

General Provident Fund Account Number to the Petitioner and thereafter, deduct

the monthly contribution from the Petitioner’s salary and deposit the same in the

said account.




                                   Page 1 of 5
Ajit
                                                                 9-WP-5290-2025.DOC



3.     The Petitioner was appointed as a part-time Shikshan Sevak (Economics) on

a 100% sanctioned aided post in the Respondent No.4 Junior College on 1 st July

2002. Respondent No. 2, Deputy Director of Education of Respondent No. 1,

State, granted approval for the appointment of the Petitioner with effect from 1 st

July 2002. The Petitioner continued to serve in the part-time aided post till 2007,

and Respondent No. 2 granted annual approvals for the same.

4.     By order dated 29 May 2008, Respondent No. 2 forwarded a proposal to

the Director of Education recommending sanction of an additional full-time post

for Economics (combined with EVS workload). The State Government issued a

Government Resolution dated 17 September 2010, sanctioning the full-time post.

5.     The Petitioner’s part-time post was accordingly upgraded to a full-time post.

By order dated 23 December 2011, Respondent No. 2 granted approval to the

Petitioner as a full-time teacher with effect from 1 July 2010, noting that the

Petitioner had served as Shikshan Sevak from 1 July 2007 to 30 June 2010, and

granting approval in the pay scale of Rs. 9,300–34,800. The Petitioner continues

to serve as a full-time teacher in Respondent No. 4 College.

6.     On 31 October 2005, Respondent No. 1 issued a Government Notification

introducing the Defined Contributory Pension Scheme (DCPS), applicable only to

employees recruited in aided institutions on or after 1 November 2005. The

Petitioner contends that, as he had been in service (as a part-time, 100%-grant-in-

aid employee) from 1 July 2002 - prior to 1 November 2005 - the DCPS does not

apply to him, and that he is instead governed by the old Pension Scheme and the

Maharashtra Provident Fund Scheme.



                                  Page 2 of 5
Ajit
                                                                  9-WP-5290-2025.DOC



7.       On approaching Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to open a Provident Fund

account and extend benefits under the old pension scheme, the Petitioner was

informed that, as he was a part-time employee when the new scheme commenced,

i.e., with effect from 1 November 2005, and became full-time only in 2007, he

would be governed by the new scheme.

8.       The Petitioner submitted a written representation dated 29 January 2025 to

Respondent No. 4, received on 1 February 2025, which was orally rejected - the

Respondent informing him that his request for old pension scheme benefits could

not be granted. Aggrieved by this refusal, the Petitioner has filed the present

petition for the reliefs as prayed.

9.       Heard Mr Vinayak Kumbhar, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner

and Mr. Aditya R. Deolekar, learned AGP representing the Respondent-State.

With their assistance, we have also perused the papers of the petition.

10.      The legal issue involved in the present matter has already been settled by a

Full Bench of this Court in the matter of Deshmukh Dilipkumar Bhagwan & Ors.

V. State of Maharashtra Through Chief Secretary, General Administration

Department & Ors1. A Division Bench of this Court had referred the issue as to

whether employees who are appointed prior to 1 st November 2005 in the aided

recognized, primary and secondary and higher secondary schools as well as colleges

receiving less than 100% grant in aid as on 1st November 2005 are entitled to the

benefit of old pension scheme under the pension rules and commutation of

Pension Rules or whether they will be governed by the New Pension Scheme


1 2019 (3) Mh.LJ (FB) 903


                                      Page 3 of 5
Ajit
                                                                           9-WP-5290-2025.DOC



under the GR of 2005 to a larger Bench. The larger Bench of this Court, in its

decision dated 30th April 2019, answered the issues in paragraph No.37 of the

Judgment, which read as under:

       “37. Under these circumstances, we answer the Reference as under:
       Question No. 1:
       In the context of the right of an employee of private school or college of education to
       receive pensionary benefits and the corresponding liability of the Government to pay the
       same, only those schools and colleges of education which are receiving 100% grant-in-aid
       can be termed as aided institutions.
       Question No. 2:
       The employees who were appointed prior to 1-11-2005 in aided recognized primary,
       secondary schools as well as colleges of education which were receiving less than 100%
       grant-in-aid as on 1-11-2005 would be governed by the DCP scheme.
       Question No. 3:
       Similar will be the situation of the employees who were appointed prior to 1-11-2005 in
       aided primary, secondary and higher secondary schools as well as the colleges of education
       which were receiving less than 100% grant-in-aid as on 1-11-2005 but which became
       100% aided before 29-11-2010 would also be governed by the DCP scheme.”


11.    Thus, in a series of decisions following the larger Bench reference, it has

been the consistent view of this Court that the services of an employee of an

educational institution are to be counted from the first date of appointment

irrespective of whether it is on a part-time or a full-time post. Further, if such

appointment is prior to 1st November 2005 then the Old Pension Scheme shall

apply to the employee. This requirement is further made clear from the GR dated

31st October 2005 of which, clause 4 provides that the employees who are

recruited on or after 1st November 2005 in the services of a recognised and aided

education institutions, the New Pension Scheme shall apply.




                                        Page 4 of 5
Ajit
                                                                                           9-WP-5290-2025.DOC



                       12.       Considering the aforesaid discussions, we are of the view that since the

                       Petitioner is appointed prior to 1st November 2005 and occupied a part-time fully

                       aided post receiving 100% grant-in-aid from the State Government, the Old

                       Pension Scheme shall apply to the Petitioner. Hence, we pass the following order:


                                                                    ORDER

                              (a) The Respondent No. 2-Deputy Director of Education shall apply the

                              pension scheme to the Petitioner No. 1 prevailing prior to 1st November, 2005

                              (old pension scheme) in accordance with the provisions of the Maharashtra

                              Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 and the Petitioner No. 1 is eligible to be

                              granted all consequential service benefits under the old pension scheme.

                              (b) The Respondent No. 2-Deputy Director of Education shall allot the

                              Provident Fund Account to the Petitioner No. I and thereafter permit the

                              Petitioner No. 2 to deduct the amount of monthly compensation from the

                              monthly salary of Petitioner No. 1 and deposit the same in the said Provident

                              Fund Account, which shall be done within a period of six weeks from the date

                              of this order.

                              (c) Rule made absolute in the above terms.

                              (d) Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

                              (e) There shall be no order as to costs.




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

          Digitally
          signed by
          AJIT
AJIT      RAMESH
RAMESH    PATHRIKAR
PATHRIKAR Date:
          2026.09.02
          10:49:49
          +0530




                                                              Page 5 of 5
                       Ajit