Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2024 DAILYLAW 2449 (BOM)

ARUNA SHANKARRAO SURYAWANSHI ALIAS ARUNA EKNATH KHAIRNAR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. ITS FINANCE DEPARTMENT AND ORS

WP/18154/2024 · 2026-09-07

body2024

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

15-WP-18154-2024.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 18154 OF 2024 Aruna Shankarrao Suryawanshi Alias Aruna Eknath Khairnar ...Petitioner Versus State Of Maharashtra Thr. Its Finance Department & Ors. ...Respondents _______ Mr. Govind Solanke for Petitioner. Mr. V. M. Mali, AGP for Respondent-State. Mr. Subhash V. Gutte for Respondent Nos. 4 & 5. _______ CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATE: 07th SEPTEMBER 2026 P.C. 1. We have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner. 2. It is the Petitioner’s case that, prior to her absorption, she was working as a Teacher on an honorary basis. Thereafter, she was absorbed and issued a regular appointment Order dated 13th February 2006. There is, however, no document annexed to the petition showing that the Petitioner was appointed on an honorary basis prior to her appointment on 13th February 2006. The Petitioner's claim is for grant of pension under the Old Pension Scheme, by applicability of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. The Petitioner would be entitled for the pension under the Old Pension Scheme only if she was appointed in a manner recognised by law prior to 1st November 2005. Thus, the appointment of the Petitioner as a regular Teacher itself is post the cut-off date of 1st November 2005. Ajit AJIT RAMESH PATHRIKAR Digitally signed by AJIT RAMESH PATHRIKAR Date: 2026.09.07 20:28:13 +0530 15-WP-18154-2024.DOC 3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner is unable to point out any document evidencing the Petitioner’s appointment, if any, prior to 1st November 2005, which could at all considered under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, read with Rule 19 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981. 4. In this view of the matter, we do not find that any honorary appointment would confer any legal right upon the Petitioner for any entitlement under the Old Pension Scheme. 5. The petition is accordingly rejected. No costs. (DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.) Ajit