The Bombay High Court has held that an employee’s service on a university-funded post cannot be excluded from pension and salary calculations, ruling in favour of a senior law officer who has spent nearly three decades in continuous employment at Savitribai Phule Pune University.
In an order passed on September 21, a division bench comprising Justices G. S. Kulkarni and Dr. Neela Gokhale set aside communications by the Maharashtra government that sought to withdraw Dr. Parveen Parvez Sayyaed’s pay protection and pensionary benefits. The court also ruled that authorities could not legally recover any disbursed funds from the officer.
Dispute Over University-Funded Tenure
Dr. Sayyaed, who holds a doctorate in law, began her employment with the university on June 9, 1997, serving as a law officer until July 31, 2010. While still in that university-funded post, she participated in a selection process for the newly advertised position of senior law officer. The government of Maharashtra had sanctioned the senior post as an aided position, making the state responsible for its salary expenditure.
Dr. Sayyaed assumed the senior law officer post on August 1, 2010, and has served in that role for almost 16 years, bringing her uninterrupted tenure at the institution to nearly 29 years.
A dispute arose when state authorities subsequently decided that her initial 13-year period as a law officer could not be factored into her pension or salary protection because her former post had been funded directly by the university rather than the state government. On that basis, authorities moved to cancel her pay protection benefits and initiate financial recovery. Dr. Sayyaed challenged the government’s decision before the High Court, asserting that she had been properly selected and had worked without any break in service.
State Action Deemed Arbitrary
The High Court ruled against the state, observing that denying pension benefits to Dr. Sayyaed disregarded extensive public service rendered to the university.
The judges pointed out that the government had already acknowledged those initial 13 years of service when it granted her an age-limit relaxation during the selection process and when it originally fixed her salary as senior law officer. Given those prior determinations, the bench characterized the state’s later withdrawal of benefits as arbitrary.
The court further observed that it would be unjust to discount such a long period of service dedicated entirely to the university. Concluding that the administration possessed neither the legal right to deny the officer her pension nor the authority to pursue monetary recoveries, the court allowed the petition in full.
During the proceedings, Senior Advocate Mihir Desai appeared on behalf of Dr. Sayyaed, while Assistant Government Pleader D. S. Deshmukh represented the state.
