Bombay High Court

SUDHA RAMESH KULKARNIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARSHTRA THROU. THE SEC. MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND ORS

Decided: 27 July 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: G S KULKARNI AARTI A SATHE

Holding

The Court held that part‑time service must be taken into account and the petitioner is entitled to pension benefits under the old pension scheme.

Summary

Mrs. Sulbha Ramesh Kulkarni, a former part‑time librarian appointed in 1996 and later promoted to full‑time in 2007, filed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging the Deputy Director of Education's order dated 30‑12‑2025 which denied her the old pension scheme on the ground that her full‑time appointment occurred after 1 November 2005. The petitioner contended that her part‑time service from 27 Nov 1996 to 27 Dec 2007 should be counted as pensionable service under the Maharashtra Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1982. The respondents relied on the pension rules to assert that only service after the cut‑off date qualifies for the old scheme. The Court examined prior decisions of the Bombay High Court which consistently held that part‑time service is to be considered for pension calculations and that the relevant rules (Rules 30, 49, note 1 to Rule 51) support entitlement to the old pension scheme. Accordingly, the Court quashed the order refusing the old pension, directed that the part‑time service be counted, and ordered the petitioner be granted pension benefits under the old scheme.

Issues considered

Whether the part‑time service rendered by the petitioner from 1996 to 2007 should be counted towards pensionable service under the Maharashtra Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1982.
Whether the petitioner is eligible for the old pension scheme despite her full‑time appointment occurring after 1 November 2005.
Interpretation of Rules 30, 49 and note 1 to Rule 51 of the Maharashtra Civil Service (Pension) Rules in relation to part‑time service.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1982 — s. Rule 30, Rule 49, Rule 51

Subjects

pension
part‑time service
old pension scheme
Maharashtra Civil Service (Pension) Rules
writ petition
Article 226
quashing order
mandamus

Judgment

1 of 6 9.WP.6245.2026.STM.DOC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.6245 OF 2026

Mrs.Sulbha Ramesh Kulkarni, Age 63 years,
R/o.B-104, Ganesh Paradise, Kala Nagar,
Near Raj Sarthi Society, Indira Nagar,
Nashik-422009. Petitioner
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra through the Secretary,
Ministry of Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai-4---32.
2. The Account General (A&E-I), Churchgate,
Mumbai-400020.
3. The Deputy Director of Education,
Nashik Region, Nashik.
4. The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Nashik.
5. Nashik Shikshan Prasarak Mandal through its
Chairman/Secretary,
J.S.Rungata High School, Nashik-422002.
6. The Principal,
J.S.Rungata High School, having officeat
Ashok Stambh, Nashik-422102. Respondents

_______
Ms.Pranita P.Hingmire for Petitioner.
Mr.B.V.Samant, Additional Govt.Pleader for Respondent.
_______

CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
AARTI SATHE, JJ.

DATE: 27th July 2026

P.C.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed

praying for the following substantive reliefs :

Digitally signed
“a) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ, order
MANISH by MANISH
SURESHRAO
SURESHRAO
THATTE
or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing and setting aside the impugned
THATTE Date: 2026.08.06
10:19:02 +0530 order dated 30/12/2025 issued by Respondent no.3 thereby refusing to grant the
old pension scheme and other pensionary benefits to the Petitioner;

Corrected version of order dated 27-7-2026, pursuant to Speaking to Minutes order dated 5-8-2026

M.S.Thatte
2 of 6 9.WP.6245.2026.STM.DOC

b) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the
Respondents to consider half of the service rendered by the Petitioner as part time
librarian (from 27-11-1996 to 27-12-2007) as qualifying service for computing
pension and other pensionary benefits;

c) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the
Respondents to reconsider and reprocess the claim of the Petitioner for grant of
pension and other pensionary benefits within stipulated time;

d) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the
Respondents to release the provisional pension to the Petitioner.”

2. The primary grievance of the Petitioner is in respect of refusal by

Respondent no.3 to apply the old pension scheme and consequential pensionary

benefits on the ground that the Petitioner’s appointment as full time Librarian was

after 1st November 2005 and hence the part time service of the Petitioner from 26 th

November 1996 to 27th December 2007 was held not admissible for old pension

scheme and pensionary benefits.

3. The facts which are relevant are as follows :

(i) On 27th November 1996, the Petitioner was appointed as a

part time Librarian for the academic year 1996-97 in Smt.C & A Chandak Kanya

Vidyalaya, Sinnar run and managed by Respondent no.4, which received grant in

aid from the State Government. The Petitioner was again appointed on the same

post by an appointment order dated 9th June 1997 for the academic year 1997-98.

On 13th February 1997 the Petitioner’s service as part time Librarian was approved

by order of even date and thereafter by an order dated 18 th October 1997 by

Respondent no.4. All the aforesaid three orders i.e. the orders dated 13 th February

1997, 9th June 1997 and 18th October 1997 passed by Respondent no.4, confirmed

Corrected version of order dated 27-7-2026, pursuant to Speaking to Minutes order dated 5-8-2026

M.S.Thatte
3 of 6 9.WP.6245.2026.STM.DOC

the services of the Petitioner as part time Librarian for the academic year 1996-97

and 1997-98;

(ii) On 11th December 1999 the Respondent no.5-Management

passed a resolution of even date and provided continuity of service to those

employees who had completed two years of service in the year 1999. The

Petitioner was also granted continuity of service by order of Respondent no.5 dated

28th April 2000;

(iii) On 26th December 2007 the Petitioner was promoted as a full

time Librarian with effect from 27th December 2007 by order of Respondent no.5

of even date and Respondent no.4 also granted approval to the aforesaid

appointment of the Petitioner as full time Librarian by order dated 27 th February

2008;

(iv) It is the Petitioner’s contention that the Principal i.e.

Respondent No.6 had forwarded a proposal to Respondent no.3 through

Respondent no.4 in respect of Petitioner’s pension claim. It is, however, Petitioner’s

contention that the Defined Contribution Pension Scheme (`DCPS’) was made

applicable to the Petitioner in the year 2007 and her account was opened from

March-2017;

(v) On 31st October 2020 the Petitioner retired from the service

of Respondent No.6 school and in May-2022 the amount collected under DCPS

scheme from the Petitioner by way of her contribution, was returned back to the

Petitioner;

Corrected version of order dated 27-7-2026, pursuant to Speaking to Minutes order dated 5-8-2026

M.S.Thatte
4 of 6 9.WP.6245.2026.STM.DOC

(vi) On 21st July 2025, the Respondent no.2 through letter of even

date sought clarification from the Petitioner whether the position on which she was

appointed, was fully aided or not, and further sought confirmation about her date

of appointment. The letter stated that the pension case of the Petitioner was put

on hold subject to the compliance of information sought from her. The Petitioner

was asked to resubmit the said information for the case to be reopened;

(vii) The Petitioner resubmitted all the particulars sought by

Respondent no.3. On 26th August 2025, the Respondent no.6 submitted a

certificate of even date certifying that the post on which the Petitioner was

appointed was 100% aided by virtue of letter of the year 1964;

(viii) On 30th December 2025 the Respondent no.3 informed the

Petitioner that since her appointment as full time Librarian was after 1 st November

2005, the Petitioner was eligible for New Pension Scheme (`NPS’) as per

Maharashtra Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1982 (for short `Pension Rules’).

4. It is in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts that the Petitioner is aggrieved

by the decision of Respondent no.3 holding that the Petitioner is ineligible for old

pension scheme and thereby denying her the benefits of her part time service

rendered from 27th November 1996 to 27th December 2007 for the purposes of

calculating her pensionary benefits in the old pension scheme.

5. Heard Ms.Pranita P.Hingmire for Petitioner and Mr.B.V.Samant,

Additional Govt.Pleader for the Respondents-State.

Corrected version of order dated 27-7-2026, pursuant to Speaking to Minutes order dated 5-8-2026

M.S.Thatte
5 of 6 9.WP.6245.2026.STM.DOC

6. At the outset, the parties are at ad idem that the controversy involved in

the present petition is covered by a series of judgments rendered by this Court in

the following cases :

a. Shivappa s/o Bhujanappa Bembele Vs. State of Maharashtra – 2005(3)-
Mh.L.J.-709.

b. Jyoti Prakash Chaugule Vs. State of Maharashtra – WP.2354/2012.

c. Shalini w/o Asaram Akkarbote Vs. State of Maharashtra – WP.8289/2013.

d. Rohini Shashikant Oak Vs. State of Maharashtra and others –
WP.5268/2025.

e. Mone Rashmi Shriram Vs. State of Maharashtra and others -
WP.13220/2016.

f. Darshana Adikrao Gaikwad Vs. State of Maharashtra and others –
WP.5421/2021.

g. Prema Herkal Vs. State of Maharashtra -WP.3719/2019.

h. Purushottam Shirsekar Vs. State of Maharashtra – WP.2538/2021.

i. Vina Upasani Vs. State of Maharashtra -WP.3386/2021.

j. Vanita Bhadule Vs. State of Maharashtra – WP(L).18703/2024.

7. In the aforesaid decisions, a consistent view has been taken that the part

time service rendered by an employee is required to be considered for calculating

pensionable service period and the date of appointment as part time Librarian has

to be taken into consideration for the same. The provisions of the Pension Rules

and more particularly Rules 30, 49, note 1 below Rule 51 of the Pension Rules

being applicable to the Petitioner and she is entitled to the old pension scheme and

pensionary benefits according thereto. Considering the aforesaid settled legal

Corrected version of order dated 27-7-2026, pursuant to Speaking to Minutes order dated 5-8-2026

M.S.Thatte
6 of 6 9.WP.6245.2026.STM.DOC

position and undisputed position agreed by both the learned counsel that the

aforesaid decisions cover the case of the Petitioner in the present petition, we deem

it appropriate to pass the following order, which will meet the ends of justice.

ORDER

(i) The letter/order dated 30th December 2025 issued by Respondent no.3

refusing to grant old pension scheme and the benefits thereunder to the Petitioner,

is hereby quashed and set aside;

(ii) The part time service rendered by the Petitioner as part time Librarian

from 27th November 1996 to 27th December 2007 shall be taken into

consideration while computing the pensionable service period and after re-fixation

of the Petitioner, she be granted other pensionary benefits in accordance with old

pension scheme;

(iii) The Petitioner shall be entitled to the benefits of old pension scheme

prevailing prior to 1st November 2005;

(iv) The aforesaid directions be complied with within a period of two

months from the date of uploading of this order;

(v) The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.

(AARTI SATHE, J.) (G.S.KULKARNI, J.)

Corrected version of order dated 27-7-2026, pursuant to Speaking to Minutes order dated 5-8-2026

M.S.Thatte

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…