Half Service as Part-Time Teacher Must Be Counted for Pension Benefits: Bombay High Court

In a significant judgment, the Bombay High Court has ruled that the service rendered as a part-time teacher must be counted as qualifying service for pensionary benefits under the old pension scheme. The ruling comes in the case of Rajendra Vishwanath Moon v. The State of Maharashtra & Others (Writ Petition No. 1603/2020), pronounced by a bench comprising Justice Nitin W. Sambre and Justice Vrushali V. Joshi on December 13, 2024.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Rajendra Vishwanath Moon, aged 53, served as a part-time junior college teacher in Shri Shivaji Arts, Commerce and Science College, Rajura, under the management of Adarsha Shikshan Prasarak Mandal in Chandrapur. His part-time service spanned from July 20, 1999, to July 1, 2007, following which he was appointed as a full-time lecturer.

Play button

Mr. Moon’s grievance stemmed from the State Government’s decision to exclude his part-time service when calculating pensionary benefits. He retired on June 30, 2024, and argued that under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, half of his part-time service should be added to his full-time service, thus qualifying him for pension under the old scheme.

READ ALSO  त्योहारों के दौरान पंडाल लगाने और सड़कों को नुकसान पहुंचाने वालों के खिलाफ बीएमसी को गंभीर प्रतिबंध लगाना चाहिए: हाई कोर्ट

Legal Issues Involved

1. Whether part-time service rendered before full-time appointment qualifies for pensionary benefits under the old pension scheme.

2. Applicability of the Defined Contributory Pension (DCP) Scheme, introduced via Government Resolution dated October 31, 2005, to employees appointed prior to its introduction.

The respondents, represented by Assistant Government Pleader Mr. N.S. Rao, contended that the petitioner’s part-time service was temporary and not eligible for consideration. They argued that a break in service from 2005-2006 to 2006-2007 disqualified Mr. Moon’s claim.

The petitioner, represented by Advocate B.G. Kulkarni, refuted these claims, asserting that his part-time service was continuous and that the DCP scheme should not apply to him as he was appointed in 1999, well before its introduction.

Court’s Observations and Ruling

The court, after carefully examining the facts and precedents, ruled in favor of the petitioner. It held that half of the part-time service must be counted along with full-time service for pensionary calculations.

READ ALSO  During Suspension Employee Not Obliged to Mark Daily Attendance For Subsistence Allowance: Bombay HC

Key observations of the Court include:

“Part-time service rendered by an employee shall have to be taken into account to the extent of half of the service in addition to the period on which the person has worked on a full-time basis for the purpose of entitlement of pensionary benefits.”

The Court relied on its earlier decisions, particularly the case of Mukund Bapurao Dhadkar v. State of Maharashtra (2016) and Shalini Asaram Akkarbote v. State of Maharashtra (2014), which established that part-time service must be partially counted for pension benefits.

Addressing the applicability of the DCP scheme, the Court observed:

“The DCP scheme is applicable to employees appointed after November 1, 2005. In the case of the petitioner, he was appointed in 1999, and therefore, the DCP scheme does not apply to him.”

Conclusion

READ ALSO  Administrative Decision Will Be Vitiated If Materials Are Not Disclosed To Affected Party: Supreme Court

The High Court directed the State Government and the education authorities to:

– Count half of the service rendered from July 20, 1999, to July 1, 2007 as qualifying service.

– Grant the petitioner pensionary benefits under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982.

Case Details

– Case Number: Writ Petition No. 1603/2020

– Bench: Justice Nitin W. Sambre and Justice Vrushali V. Joshi

– Petitioner: Rajendra Vishwanath Moon

– Respondents: State of Maharashtra, Director of Secondary and Higher Education, Deputy Director of Education, Adarsha Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, and Shri Shivaji College.

– Petitioner’s Lawyer: Mr. B.G. Kulkarni

– Respondents’ Lawyers: Mr. N.S. Rao (State Government), Ms. Kirti Satpute (College Management)

Law Trend
Law Trendhttps://lawtrend.in/
Legal News Website Providing Latest Judgments of Supreme Court and High Court

Related Articles

Latest Articles