Ajit B. Kadethankar, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, we have heard this matter for final disposal.
2. The issue involved in this Writ Petition is no more res-integra.
The petitioner who was appointed on a part time post of Librarian on 08.09.1997 in Shri. S.G.S High School, Pachora, has sought benefits of the Old Pension Scheme. It is an admitted position that in view of the Government Resolution dated 31.10.2005, teaching and non teaching employees of private aided school appointed prior to 01.11.2005 are governed by the Old Pension Scheme. There are only two requirements for taking benefit of the Old Pension Scheme i.e. (i) the appointments ought to have been made prior to the cut-off date i.e. 01.11.2005, and (ii) the institution has to be a fully aided.
3. Admittedly, by following due procedure of law the petitioner was appointed on a part time post of Librarian and served in that capacity from 08.09.1997 to 02.08.2006. Since from 03.08.2006 the Petitioner was upgraded to the full time post of Librarian, on which he continued to serve till his superannuation on 30.06.2020. On this backdrop, the only question that remains for consideration is, “whether if a person appointed on a part time basis in a fully aided educational institution prior to the cut off date i.e. 01.11.2005, is entitled to be governed by the Old Pension School”.
4. The moot issue is already answered by this Court in a series of judgments. We may beneficially place our hands on the recent judgment delivered by this Court on 07.04.2026 in Writ Petition No.10036 of 2010 (Sunanda Sahatragun Ingale Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others). In the said judgment, this Court relied upon the judgment and order dated 23.12.2025, passed by the Division Bench of this Court at Circuit Bench at Kolhapur in Writ Petition No.396 of 2021 and observed thus:
| 13. In view of the settled legal position consistently laid down by this Court, it is no longer res integra that 50% of the service rendered as a Part Time Librarian is liable to be reckoned for the purpose of computing qualifying service for pension, along with the entire service rendered as a full time employee. The distinction sought to be drawn by the respondents between parttime and full-time service, to the extent of denying pensionary benefits, has been repeatedly rejected. In the present case, the husband of the petitioner had rendered long years of service, first as a part-time Librarian and thereafter as a full-time Librarian, and therefore, the petitioner, being his widow, cannot be deprived of family pension. Denial of such benefit would defeat the very object of social security underlying the pension scheme. Therefore, we are of the view that the petitioner is entitled for family pension as per the relief sought by her vide prayer clause (C-1.). Accordingly, we pass the following order :- ORDER (1) The writ petition is allowed. (2) It is held that 50% of the service rendered by the husband of the petitioner as Part-Time Librarian shall be taken into account along with the entire service rendered as Full-Time Librarian for the purpose of computing qualifying service for pensionary benefits. (3) Considering above, Respondent No.4/School shall submit a proposal of family pension to respondent No.2 & 3, within a period of four weeks from the date of uploading of this order. (4) Respondent Nos.2 & 3 shall submit proposal to the concerned competent Department for grant of family pension to the petitioner as per old pension scheme, within a period of four weeks from receipt of such proposal from respondent No.4/ School. (5) The concerned competent Department shall determine the entitlement of the petitioner for pensionary benefits by taking into account 50% of the Part Time service alongwith entire Full Time service rendered by husband of the petitioner for granting family pensionary benefits, in accordance with law, and release the arrears and regular family pension under old pension scheme within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of such proposal from respondent No.2 and 3. (6) Rule is made absolute in above terms. |
| (I) Shri Anil Dhondiram Kore Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others (Writ Petition No.396/2021) dated 23/12/2025; (II) Vijaya Rajgonda Patil @ Vijaykumar Kole Vs. The State of Maharashtra, thr. Secretary, School Education Department & others (Writ Petition No.11721/2023) dated 11/11/2025; (III) Babaso Ganpatil Awate Vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors. (Writ Petition No.3796/2021) dated 09/10/2024; (IV) Savita Bhikaji Barmukh Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. (Writ Petition No.14899/2022) dated 06/12/2023; (V) Smt. Darshana wd/o Adikrao Gaikwad Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. (Writ Petition No.5421/2017) dated 09/07/2018; and (VI) Anita Bhagawat Narkhede alias Anita Avinash Kolhe Vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors. (Writ Petition No.13031/2023). |
| “2. The Petitioner was appointed as part time librarian in the private aided school on 21st September 1990. She was made full time librarian with effect from 6th November 2006. The Petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 31st May 2016. The service rendered by the Petitioner on full time basis from 6th November 2006 has been taken into consideration for the purpose of pension. However, the earlier service rendered by her on part time basis has not been counted. The reliance is placed on Rule 57, Note-1 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. It is further urged that the Petitioner is governed by the pension scheme prevailing prior to 31st October 2015. 3. The controversy involved in the present case is covered by the decision dated 9th July 2018 given by this Court in Writ Petition No.5421 of 2017 (Nagpur Bench), which takes into consideration the earlier decisions also (consistent view taken by this Court). The decision holds that the Petitioner therein is entitled to claim 50% of the part time services rendered by the employee for the purpose of pension and date of appointment as part time librarian has to be taken into consideration for the purpose of pension. Paragraph 4 of the said decision is relevant and it is reproduced below : “4. We have gone through Government Resolution dated 31-10-2005 and we do not find that Clause 4(b) therein makes any distinction between the Part Time and Full Time employees. It states that the decision contained in the said Government Resolution shall mutatis-mutandis apply to the employees who are recruited on or before 1-11-2005, to whom the existing Pension Scheme or General Provident Fund Scheme would be applicable. Undisputedly, the husband of the Petitioner was recruited on 1-7-1998 as a Part Time Librarian and we find that the stand of the Respondents is that Clause 4(b) contains the recruitment as a Full Time employee as on 1-11-2005, is artificial and it is not borne out from the said Government Resolution.” 4. The stand taken by the Respondents in their affidavit is that the date of appointment as full time librarian can only be considered, as it is a fresh appointment. This contention has already been rejected. We are also unable to accept this plea that the appointment as full time librarian is a fresh appointment. The services of the Petitioner has to be counted from the first date of appointment and therefore the pension scheme prevailing prior to 1st November 2005 would be applicable to the Petitioner. In the result, writ petition is allowed and the order is passed as under : -: O R D E R :- 1] The order dated 11th July 2018 passed by Respondent No.2 refusing to grant pension and other benefits to the Petitioner is hereby quashed and set aside. 2] The 50% of services rendered by the Petitioner as part time librarian from 21st September 1990 till 6th November 2006 shall be taken into consideration while computing the pensionable service rendered by the Petitioner. 3] The Petitioner shall be entitled to benefit of pension scheme prevailing prior to 1st November 2005. 4] All this exercise shall be carried out within the period of four months from today.” |
8. We record the fair submission advanced by Mr. P. S. Patil, learned Additional Government Pleader that the issue as regards to grant of Old Pension Scheme on the touchstone of the two parameters laid down in the Government Resolution dated 31.10.2005 is pending consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court. He further submits that although the matter is pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court, there is no prohibitory order operating as on date. On specific query, he doesn’t dispute that this Court has consistently taken a view to allow the benefit of old pension scheme as there is no prohibitory orders.
9. Mr. M. P. Tripathi a/w Mr. A. B. Deshmukh h/f Mr. U. B. Gite, learned Advocate for the petitioner demonstrates a number of decisions wherein this Court has consistently granted the benefit of Old Pension Scheme in similar cases. Hence, we pass following order:
ORDER
a. Writ Petition stands allowed.
b. The impugned order dated 01.12.2020, passed by respondent no.2, denying the benefit of Old Pension Scheme to the petitioner is quashed and set aside.
c. Respondent no.2 shall confer upon the petitioner pensionary benefits under the Old Pension Scheme counting petitioner’s 50% of part time services tenure for the purpose of pensionary benefits.
d. The pensionary benefits with arrears be released to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from today.
e. Rule made absolute in above terms.
f. Civil Application if any, stands disposed of.