PUNE ZILLA VA UCCHA MADHYAMIK SHALA GRANTHPAL SANGH PUNE THROU. ITS SECRETARY RAMESH D THORATversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROU. ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY EDUCATION DEPT AND ANR

          Digitally
          signed by
          AJIT
AJIT
RAMESH
          RAMESH
          PATHRIKAR
                                                                                               11-WP-7152-2024.DOC
PATHRIKAR Date:
          2026.09.24
          15:11:09
          +0530




                                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                             WRIT PETITION NO. 7152 OF 2024
                       Pune Zilla Va Uccha Madhyamik Shala
                       Granthpal Sangh Pune                                 ...Petitioner
                              Versus
                       The State Of Maharashtra Throu. Its
                       Principal Secretary Education Dept & Anr.            ...Respondents
                                                           _______
                       Mr. N. V. Bandiwadekar, Senior Advocate with B. S. Nayak for Petitioner.

                       Mr. P. P. Kakade, AGP a/w Ms. Priyanka Chavan, AGP for Respondent-State.
                                                                   _______

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

                                                        DATE:           21st SEPTEMBER 2026
                       P.C.

                       1.         Leave to amend and substitute Exhibit ‘A’ in terms of the correct Exhibit is

                       handed over is granted.

                       2.         Let the amendment be carried out within the course of the day. An

                       amended copy of the petition be served on the learned AGP.

                       3.         This petition is filed in a representative capacity, contending that the

                       members of the Petitioner are being deprived of the benefits of the Old Pension

                       Scheme, on the ground that their appointments initially were on part-time aided

                       posts and, later on, they were appointed to permanent full-time aided posts as

                       Librarians.

                       4.         The prayer made in the petition is required to be noted, which reads thus:

                                “a)        This Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated
                                7.2.2023 passed by the respondent no. 2 herein it being contrary to law.
                                b)        This Hon ble court be pleased to hold that the Government Resolution
                                dated 31.10.2005 is not applicable to the petitioners.



                                                               Page 1 of 3
                       Ajit Pathrikar
                                                                             11-WP-7152-2024.DOC



         c)          That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any
         other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to grant to the
         petitioners the benefits under the old pension and provident fund scheme by
         allotting them the provident fund account number by taking into consideration their
         initial service as part time librarians and subsequent continuous service rendered by
         them as permanent full time librarians and consequential benefits.
         d)         Cost of this petition
         e)         For such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and
         proper”

5.         At the outset, Mr. Bandiwadekar, learned Senior Advocate, who has been

appointed as amicus, submits that the issue is no more res integra in view of the

recent pronouncement of this Court in the case of Dadasaheb Sada Kadam vs. State

of Maharashtra and Ors. (Writ Petition No.11651 of 2023), which was a similar

case where the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme was denied to the Petitioner who

was initially appointed as a part-time Librarian on an aided post and, later on,

appointed to a full-time post.

6.         The Division Bench, considering the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension)

Rules, 1982 (“MCS (Pension) Rules”), Rule 19 of the Maharashtra Employees of

Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981and the several decisions in that

regard, took the view that the benefit of part-time service in the manner

understood by Rule 57 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules is

required to be granted. The relevant observations in that regard are required to be

noted, which read thus:

         “25.      A cumulative reading of the aforesaid rules would indicate that such rules
         have taken into consideration every possible situation in regard to the counting of
         qualifying services, which even includes an employee holding a temporary
         Government servant post rendered without interruption by confirmation, counting
         of service on contract etc. Also in regard to the employees who are subsequently
         brought on a regular pensionable establishment by conversion of their posts, one-
         half of their previous continuous service is allowed to be counted for pension as
         provided under Note 1 to Rule 57 of the MCS (Pension) Rules.



                                           Page 2 of 3
Ajit Pathrikar
                                                                               11-WP-7152-2024.DOC



         26.        In our opinion, applying the aforesaid rules, necessarily the part-time
         service of the petitioner rendered from the year 1995 till 31 March 2006 (i.e. till his
         upgradation to the full-time post of librarian) was required to be reckoned for the
         purpose of considering his qualifying service for pension. Thus, notionally such
         service of 11 years (i.e. from 12 June 1995 till 31 March 2006) will be required to be
         counted/considered on applicability of Rule 57 of the MCS (Pension) Rules, read
         with Note 1 by taking into consideration half of such service i.e. period of
         approximately 5 years 4 months would be required to be notionally accepted and
         counted towards the petitioner's pensionable service and not from 01 April 2006 as
         contended by respondent nos. 3 and 4. Accordingly, the period of about more than 5
         years 4 months anterior to 31 March 2006 was required to be considered to calculate
         the qualifying service of the petitioner for grant of pension. This would bring about
         a situation that the petitioner had become eligible/qualified for pension from or
         about November 2000, which was certainly prior to the cut off date 1 November,
         2005.
         27.        If this be so, to say that the petitioner's qualifying service would be
         required to be taken into consideration from 01 April 2006 i.e. the date he was
         absorbed on the post of full-time librarian, would in fact become contrary to the
         provisions of the MCS (Pension) Rules as noted by us hereinabove and particularly
         of Rule 57, Note 1. Thus, in our clear opinion, the petitioner had become entitled
         for pension under the old pension scheme from the period in or about November
         2000.”

7.         The learned AGP on behalf of the State would not dispute the aforesaid

legal position. We are thus of the opinion that the case of each of the members of

the Petitioner will be required to be taken into consideration by the respective

Education Authorities for grant of pension, applying the law laid down by this

Court in Dadasaheb Sada Kadam (supra) and grant the benefit of the Old Pension

Scheme to the members of the Petitioner who become eligible for such grant. The

concerned authority shall consider the individual facts of the case for independent

orders to be passed in that regard.

8.         All contentions of the parties in that regard are expressly kept open.

9.         Disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.




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


                                           Page 3 of 3
Ajit Pathrikar