Bombay High Court
BHARATI HANUMANT THOMBAREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR GP AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The Court held that part‑time service must be counted at 50% for pension purposes, thereby qualifying the petitioner for the Old Pension Scheme.
Summary
Bharati Hanumant Thombare, a former teacher, was appointed part‑time in 1994 and later full‑time in 2009, retiring in 2025. The Deputy Director of Education rejected her pension proposal on the ground that her earlier part‑time service did not qualify for the Old Pension Scheme. The petitioner argued that under Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, Rule 57 and the related note, part‑time service must be counted at 50% for pension eligibility, and relied on a Full Bench decision in Deshmukh v. State of Maharashtra. The Court held that the part‑time tenure must indeed be considered at the prescribed weightage, making the petitioner’s appointment fall before the 1 Nov 2005 cut‑off and thus entitling her to the Old Pension Scheme. Accordingly, the petition was allowed and arrears of pension with interest were ordered to be paid.
Issues considered
- Whether part‑time service on a grant‑in‑aid post is to be counted (at 50%) for the Old Pension Scheme under Maharashtra pension rules.
- Whether the petitioner, appointed before the 1 Nov 2005 cut‑off, is eligible for the Old Pension Scheme despite having served part‑time earlier.
- Interpretation of Rule 19 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 and Rule 57 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226, Article 227
- Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 — s. Note 2, Rule 57
- Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 — s. Rule 19
Subjects
- Old Pension Scheme
- part‑time service
- Maharashtra pension rules
- grant‑in‑aid schools
- private school teachers
- Article 226
- pension entitlement
Judgment
18-WP-6275-2026.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 6275 OF 2026
Bharati Hanumant Thombare ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
_______
Mr. Rahul Kadam for Petitioner.
Mrs. M. P. Thakur, AGP for Respondents.
_______
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
DATE: 07th SEPTEMBER 2026
P.C.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned
counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing.
2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking
the following substantive reliefs:
“[A] That this Hon'ble Court under its Civil Appellate Writ
Jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India 1950,
be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 05th January 2026 passed
by Respondent No. 3 Deputy Director of Education and thereby denial of
the old pension benefit to the present Petitioner.
[B] That this Hon'ble Court under its Civil Appellate Writ
Jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India 1950,
Respondents may be directed that old pension benefit may be given to the
present Petitioner for the reasons stated in this Petition by allowing her
Pension Proposal.”
3. The case of the Petitioner is that she was appointed on 19 th August 1994 as a
part-time teacher on a 100% grant-in-aid post by Respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
Thereafter, admittedly, on 15th June 2009, the Petitioner was granted appointment
as a full-time teacher at Respondent No.5-School on a fully aided post. The
Petitioner retired from service on 31st August 2025.
Page 1 of 4
Ajit
18-WP-6275-2026.DOC
4. The pension proposal was submitted by Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to
Respondent No.3-Deputy Director of Education, Pune Region, on 30 th April
2025. By the impugned communication dated 5 th January 2026, the Petitioner’s
pension proposal was rejected by Respondent No.3 on the ground that the
Petitioner had earlier been appointed as a part-time teacher and was granted a full
time appointment only on 15th June 2009, being appointed as a full-time teacher.
Hence, the Petitioner would not become entitled to pension under the Old
Pension Scheme.
5. Mr. Rahul Kadam, learned counsel for the Petitioner, would contend that
the impugned communication is ex facie arbitrary and it is also in the teeth of the
decision of the Full Bench of this Court and several decisions which interpret the
provisions of Rule 19 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools
(Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, as also the relevant Rules under the
Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, whereby an employee who was
granted an appointment as a part-time teacher on a fully aided post and later on
was granted an appointment as a full-time teacher on an aided post would become
entitled to pension under the Old Pension Scheme by taking into consideration the
tenures spent as a part-time teacher.
6. In the present case, admittedly the Petitioner’s tenure from 10 th September
1997 to 14th June 2009 was on the part-time post. Such period has not been
considered for the purpose of grant of pension. Considering the provisions of the
Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, more particularly Rule 57 and Note 2
thereunder, would come to the Petitioner’s benefit, to the effect that necessarily, the
Page 2 of 4
Ajit
18-WP-6275-2026.DOC
part-time service rendered by her to the extent of weightage of 50% of such service
rendered on the part-time post would be required to be taken into consideration
for grant of the Old Pension Scheme. Thus, the tenure of service from 10 th
September 1997 to 14th June 2009 would be required to be taken into
consideration and 50% of the said period would be required to be added to the
Petitioner’s regular service as a full-time teacher with effect from 15 th April 2009.
Thus, if such 50% period is taken into consideration, then certainly the Petitioner’s
appointment would fall prior to the cut-off date of 1st November 2005.
7. 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. The Full Bench was concerned with an issue as to whether
employees who are appointed prior to 1 st November 2005 in the aided recognized,
primary, secondary and higher secondary schools as well as colleges receiving less
than 100% grant in aid as on 1st November 2005 were 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 under the GR of 2005.
The Full 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
1 2019 (3) Mh.LJ (FB) 903
Page 3 of 4
Ajit
18-WP-6275-2026.DOC
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 col-
leges 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.”
8. In view of the aforesaid clear position in law that the period of part-time
service rendered by the Petitioner would be required to be taken into
consideration, would entitle the Petitioner to the benefit under the Old Pension
Scheme. Accordingly, the petition would be required to be allowed. It is allowed in
terms of prayer clauses (A) and (B).
9. Let the arrears of pension along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum be
released in favour of the Petitioner within four weeks from the date this order is
uploaded.
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
Digitally
signed by
AJIT
AJIT RAMESH
RAMESH PATHRIKAR
PATHRIKAR Date:
2026.09.08
15:25:49
+0530
Page 4 of 4
Ajit
Checking your session…