Employees Can't Seek Condonation Of Interruption In Service For "Enhancing" Pension: Bombay High Court

A bench of Justices RD Dhanuka and SG Mehare stated that,

"the purpose of condoning the interruptions in service is to make an employee entitled to the pension by adding the days of his service and not to enhance the pension for the reason that the pension is to be calculated and paid on the basis of the last salary drawn on the substantive permanent post."

The petitioners were permanent in service as teachers in Municipal Corporation (the then Council). Before permanency, there were interruptions in their service. They sought condonation of breaks in service for enhancement of the pension and other retiral benefits.

At the outset, the Court observed that qualifying service is sine qua non for pension as per the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. Rule 30 of the Pension Rules provides ten years of qualifying service as a condition precedent for the entitlement of pension. In view of the pension scheme, where the employee in substantive service has rendered the service less than ten years, then his previous temporary or officiating service is counted for completing the minimum ten years of service subject to the other rules and his personal service record.

Reference was made to the case of Shivappa s/o Bhujanappa Bembale vs The State of Maharashtra 2005 (3) Mh.L.J 709, where the petitioner had served with Zilla Parishad as Peon for 20 years, and then in a regular post he served for three years. The Division Bench of the Bombay High court held that Note 1 of Rule 57 of Pension Rule is applicable and counted half of his earlier part-time service i.e. ten years, and held him eligible for pension.

In this backdrop, it observed,

"Reading the Rules 30, 33, 48 and 110 of the Pension Rules conjointly, we are of the opinion that it is crystal clear if the service of an employee at his superannuation is less than ten years, then the previous temporary or officiating service needed to be counted for the qualifying service for pension."

However, in the instant case, the Court noted that the Petitioners were already eligible for pension and had approached the Court for "enhancement".

In this light the bench held that that having regard to the term of service of the petitioners and that they had qualifying service, making them eligible for pension as per the Pension Rules, they are thus not entitled to claim the condonation of the interruption in their services to merely enhance their pension.

Case Title : Muktabai and ors v State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 167