Part-Time Service Recognized For Pension Benefits Under Old Scheme: Bombay HC
Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench: A division bench of Justices Nitin W. Sambre and Vrushali V. Joshi held that part-time teaching service should count towards pension benefits under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. It confirmed that the petitioner, who moved from part-time to full-time teaching, was entitled to pensionary benefits starting from his first appointment...
Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench: A division bench of Justices Nitin W. Sambre and Vrushali V. Joshi held that part-time teaching service should count towards pension benefits under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. It confirmed that the petitioner, who moved from part-time to full-time teaching, was entitled to pensionary benefits starting from his first appointment in 1999. It held that half the period served as a part-time Teacher, along with entire the period spent as a full-time Lecturer should be considered for pension calculations. The court ordered the State to provide benefits accordingly.
Background
Rajendra Vishwanath Moon began working as a part-time teacher at Shri Shivaji Arts, Commerce and Science College, Rajura, from July 1999 until July 2007. His appointments were approved annually by the Education Department. In July 2007, he was made a full-time lecturer. After retiring in June 2024, he requested that his part-time service be included in his qualifying tenure for pension. With this, he argued that his total service exceeded 21 years and qualified him for benefits under the old pension scheme. The Education Department, however, classified him under the DCP scheme, applicable to employees hired after November 1, 2005. It claimed his part-time service lacked permanent approval for some years and that there was a break in his employment.
Arguments
The petitioner argued that his part-time role, though not full-time, was continuous and qualified for partial recognition under pension rules. He relied on Mukund Bapurao Dhadkar v. State of Maharashtra (WP No. 10221/2015), in which part-time service had been considered for pension benefits. He argued that the same would apply here too. Lastly, he claimed that any gaps in his approvals were due to administrative delay rather than interruptions in actual working.
The respondents, including the State and the Education Department, countered that the petitioner's part-time position was temporary and lacked continuity in certain years. They argued that he was on a temporary basis for each academic session, and his post itself was not permanent in nature. They also pointed out that his full-time appointment in 2007 occurred after the State Government issued Defined Contributory Pension scheme (“DCP”), thereby disqualifying him from the old pension system.
Court's Reasoning
The court first noted that the petitioner had served without interruption from 1999, despite administrative delays in approvals. It also highlighted that the respondents had not issued an appointment order every year to the petitioner. This, the court concluded, undermined their claim that the petitioner's service lacked continuity.
Further, relying on Mukund Bapurao Dhadkar and Shalini Asaram Akkarbote v. State of Maharashtra (WP No. 8289/2013), the court observed that part-time service must also be considered towards pension benefits. However, it clarified that only half of the petitioner's part-time service period would be counted. Thus, the court held that along with the period spent as a full-time lecturer, half the period served as a part-time teacher would be considered for pension calculations. It noted that this brought the petitioner's total tenure to over 21 years, entitling him to benefits under the old scheme.
The court also rejected the argument that the DCP scheme applied to the petitioner. It explained that the old pension scheme's applicability hinged on the date of first appointment, not subsequent status changes. Since the petitioner began his service in 1999, the court concluded that he was clearly covered under the earlier scheme. It clarified that the 2007 full-time appointment did not alter his initial eligibility when he joined service. Thus, the court allowed the petition and directed the State to provide appropriate pensionary benefits.
Decided On: 13-12-2024
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 1603 of 2020, Rajendra Vishwanath Moon v. The State of Maharashtra
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. B.G. Kulkarni
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. N.S. Rao (Assistant Government Pleader) for Respondents 1–3; Ms. Kirti Satpute for Respondents 4–5