Bombay High Court Grants Relief To Librarian, Says 50% Of Her Part-Time Employment Must Be Included To Calculate Eligibility For Pension

The Bombay High Court’s Nagpur bench has allowed pension and retirement benefits to a librarian on the ground that the service she rendered as a part-time employee before her position was confirmed cannot be ignored.

Fifty percent of her tenure as a part-time employee should be included while assessing her eligibility for pension under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, the bench held.

A division bench of Justices Rohit Deo and MW Chandwani accordingly set aside the order of the Accounts Officer, Accountant General denying pension.

“Considering the law laid down in the decisions supra, it will have to be held that 50% of the part-time employment rendered by the petitioner 1 shall have to be considered for the purpose of calculating the qualifying service.”

The petitioner Pratibha Prakash Almast approached the Bombay High Court against the order denying her pension. The order stated that Almast was appointed as a full-time librarian in 2012, only three years before her superannuation in 2016, she didn’t complete her minimum qualifying service of 10 years to be entitled for pension.

Advocate Anand Parchure for the petitioner submitted that the order completely ignored the 16 years and 10 months of service as a part time Librarian. If 50% of the petitioner’s part time employment was taken into account she has rendered qualifying service of 12 years and 4 months and is entitled to pension, it was argued.

He further submit that the entitlement of the pension will have to be considered on the touchstone of Rule 57, Note 1 read with Rules 30 and 31 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982.

The state government contended since the petitioner was appointed as full-time Librarian on 30.06.2012, i.e. after the issuance of the Government Resolution dated 31.10.2005 which introduced the Defined Contribution Pension Scheme, which replaced the then Pension Scheme, the petitioner is not entitled to pension.

However, the court relied on the 2021 decision of the Bombay High Court in Renuka Chandrabhan Umredkar Vs. State of Maharashtra to reject the State's argument.

Accordingly, the court set aside the Accountant’s 2019 order and granted the petitioner all pensionary benefits.

Case Title - Pratibha Prakash Almast & others VS State of Maharashtra

Case Number – WP 80 of 2020

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment