8-WP-17041-2024.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 17041 OF 2024 Chandrakant Jerambhai Sanghavi ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents _______ Mr. Vinayak Kumbhar a/w Rajendra Khaire i/b Ashwini N. Bandiwadekar for Petitioner. Ms. Nisha M. Mehra, AGP for Respondent-State. Mr. Mohammed i/b Kunal R. Maskar for Respondent Nos. 4 & 5. _______ CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATE: 31st AUGUST 2026 P.C. 1. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following substantive reliefs: “a] Rule Nisi be issued and records and proceedings be called for. b] By a suitable writ, order or direction, the impugned orders dated 22.11.2023 and 7.5.2018 passed by the Respondent No. 1 may kindly be set aside, and accordingly the Respondent No. 1 may be directed to condone the break in service of the Petitioner in accordance with the proposal submitted by the Respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 3.12.2016, and to sanction all the retirement benefits to the Petitioner such as retirement pension, gratuity, etc., together with arrears of pension from 1.11.2008 onwards. c] Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Writ Petition, the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 may be directed to pay the provisional pension to the Petitioner having retired as a teacher on 31.10.2008.” 2. We find that the basic grievance of the Petitioner is that he has not been held eligible for grant of pension, which he claims on the ground that he was Ajit 8-WP-17041-2024.DOC continuously in employment, although under different managements. 3. It appears from the record that the Petitioner changed his employment on several occasions from the year 1975 till his retirement on 31st October 2008. The details of his different employments are set out in the reply affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No.1-State of Shri Tushar Vasantrao Mahajan, Deputy Secretary to the State Government in the office of School, Education and Sports Department. The said affidavit is an exhaustive affidavit. In paragraph 3 thereof, the following details of the Petitioner’s employment have been set out: Sr. No. Name of School Aided/ unaided Period of service Break in service Reason for break in service 1 Shri. A.A. Bhimji Vidya, Matunga aided 17/11/1975 to 10/06/1976 6 months 14 days 11/06/1976 to 12/07/1976 1 month 2 days Terminated due to insufficient qualification 2 Shri. V. C. Gurukula Highschool, Ghatkopar, Mumbai aided 13/07/1976 to 13/06/1977 11 months 14/06/1977 to 12/6/1978 11 months 29 days Terminated due to insufficient qualification. 3 Central Railway Employees Jr. Coll. Parel, Mumbai aided 13/06/1978 to 30/04/1984 5 years 10 months 17 days 1/05/1984 to 9/07/1985 1 year 2 months 09 days Resigned as per the report received from School. 4 N.G.A & D.K. Marathe Vidya, Chembur, Mumbai aided 10/07/1985 to 20/04/1986 9 months 10 days 21/04/1986 to 3/07/1988 2 years 2 months 13 days Terminated due to insufficient qualification 5 L. A Raheja College Santacruz, Mumbai Aided 4/07/1988 to 20/04/1989 9 months 16 days 21/04/1989 to 24/08/1990 1 year 4 monhts 4 days Terminated due to insufficient qualification 6 N. G. A & D. K. Marathe Vidya, Chembur aided 25/08/1990 to 20/04/1991 9 months 16 days 21/04/1991 to 24/08/1990 06/09/1991 4 months 16 days Terminated due to insufficient qualification 7 Mithibai College aided 7/09/1991 to 1/05/1992 to Terminated due Ajit 8-WP-17041-2024.DOC Vileparle, Mumbai 30/04/1992 7 monhts 23 days 22/07/1992 2 months 22 days to insufficient qualification 8 Sanskardham Jr. Coll. Goregaon, Mumbai aided 23/07/1992 to 10/03/2001 8 years 7 months 15 days 11/03/2001 to 30/04/2006 5 years 1 months 21 days Resigned as per the report received from School. 9 Sheth D. J. Highschool Malad, Mumbai aided 1/05/2006 to 31/10/2008 2 years 6 months Superannuated 4. The case of the Petitioner is that his tenure of service with Sanskardham Junior College, Goregaon, Mumbai (Item No.8 supra) from the year 1992 to 2001 and his subsequent employment, after his resignation from Sanskardham Junior College, with Sheth D. J. Highschool Malad, Mumbai, from 1st May 2026 till his retirement on 31st October 2008, have not been taken into consideration and if the same is taken into consideration, he would become eligible for pension. 5. At the outset, we may observe that, if any issue in regard to continuity of service was to be asserted by the Petitioner, more particularly when the Petitioner retired on 31st October 2008, the Petitioner ought to have agitated the grievance during the tenure of his active service i.e., at the relevant time. The present petition itself has been filed in the year 2024. 6. We find that the Petitioner’s earlier service be taken into consideration, which was not liable for forfeiture, is being raised for the first time after his superannuation. 7. In our opinion, the Petitioner’s grievance has been appropriately informed to the Petitioner by the impugned communication dated 22nd November 2023, Ajit 8-WP-17041-2024.DOC which itself is on a representation dated 4th October 2022, made about 14 years after the Petitioner being superannuated. 8. We find that Rule 46(1) and (2) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, provides for forfeiture of service on resignation. Rule 46(1) and (2) of the Rules of 1982 reads thus: “46. Forfeiture of service on resignation (1) Resignation from a service or a post entails forfeiture of past service. (2) A resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service if it has been submitted to take up, with proper permission, another appointment, whether temporary or permanent under the Government where service qualifies.” 9. Thus, Sub-rule (2) (supra) categorically provides that resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service if it has been submitted to take up, with proper permission, another appointment, whether temporary or permanent under the Government where service qualifies. We find that there is no averment as also there is no material on record that, when the Petitioner resigned from Sanskardham Junior College, Goregaon, Mumbai on 11th March 2001, he had obtained prior approval for his past service to be taken into consideration without forfeiture and thereafter accepted another appointment at Sheth D. J. Highschool, Malad. Mumbai. 10. Thus, in our opinion, the Petitioner has not demonstrated any legal right available to the Petitioner, in respect of his several services under private managements which, in fact, were also terminated for different reasons as set out hereinabove. Page 4 of 5 Ajit 8-WP-17041-2024.DOC 11. Thus, there is no case made out for any condonation of the breaks in service. We cannot accept any argument which would, in fact, be contrary to the Rules and/or would amount to a breach of the said Rules. Thus, having perused the record and also the detailed affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government, we are not inclined to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to grant any relief as prayed for by the Petitioner. 12. The Writ Petition is accordingly rejected. 13. Disposed of. No costs. (DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.) Ajit AJIT RAMESH PATHRIKAR Digitally signed by AJIT RAMESH PATHRIKAR Date: 2026.09.02 10:50:09 +0530