15.WP14296_2024.DOC Vidya Amin IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14296 OF 2024 Pratibha Suhas Gogate … Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents __________ Mr. Ajit J. Kenjale a/w. Sai Rajendra Kadam for the petitioner. Mrs. Nisha M. Mehra, AGP for the State. __________ CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATE: 8 SEPTEMBER, 2026. P.C. 1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, heard finally. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed for the following substantive reliefs: “a) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner’s case for application of the old pension scheme by considering commencement of qualifying services from the date of initial appointment on part time basis and for which one half of that service be calculated towards the applicability of the pension benefits to the petitioner. b) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct to forthwith take action on the petitioner’s representation dated 14.9.2020 and 9.12.2020 and further to take decision on the letter dated 17.6.2021 to respondent no. 2 – Divisional Deputy Director, Education, Mumbai Division, Mumbai. c) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to exercise its power vested in it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and issue a writ of mandamus or by any other writ to direct respondent no. 2 to 5 to consider commencement of qualifying service for old pension and general provident fund scheme benefits of the petitioner from the initial date of appointment on part time basis and one half of that service needs to be calculated towards their pension benefits. d) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to exercise its power vested in it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and issue a writ of mandamus or by any other writ to direct the Respondent nos.2 to 5 to consider that the present petitioner is entitled to pay fixation, time bound promotion, old pension 8 September, 2026 2026:BHC-AS:37757-DB 15.WP14296_2024.DOC scheme and general provident fund benefits without any arrears calculated from the date when the respective school of the petitioner attained the strength of 1000 students.” 3. The case of the petitioner is that having retired as a full-time Librarian, she was entitled to the grant of pension under the Old Pension Scheme, her appointment being prior to the cut-off date of 1 November, 2005, i.e., prior to the Defined Contribution Pension System (DCPS) being made applicable by the Government Resolution dated 31 October, 2005. 4. The relevant facts, which are not in dispute, are required to be noted: The petitioner came to be appointed as a part time Librarian on 1 July, 1994 on an aided post with St. Lawrence High School, Santacruz (W). She continued on the said post for almost 10 years. On 24 December, 2004, she was appointed as a full-time Librarian on an aided post. She superannuated on 30 November, 2013. It is her case that she ought to have granted the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme, as her appointment as a full-time Librarian was prior to the cut-off date of 1 November, 2005. In any event, her contention is that her services as a part- time Librarian with effect from 1 July, 1994 would also enure to her benefit. 5. Although a reply affidavit has been filed to the petition, Ms. Mehra, learned AGP, on instructions, submits that the petitioner would be correct in her contention that her appointment to the post as full-time Librarian was itself prior to the cut off date of 1 November, 2005, i.e., on 24 December, 2004. She submits that, having regard to the prior service rendered by the petitioner as a part-time Librarian with effect from 1 July, 1994, the petitioner would be entitled 8 September, 2026 15.WP14296_2024.DOC to the grant of pension under the Old Pension Scheme. We may observe that the law in this regard is well settled. We refer to the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Deshmukh Dilipkumar Bhagwan vs. State of Maharashtra1, that even otherwise the part-time service would be required to be taken into consideration in accordance with the provisions of Rule 57 of the The Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, which is as under: 57. Non-pensionable service. As exceptions to Rule 30, the following are not in pensionable service :- (a) Government servants who are paid for work done for Government but whose whole-time is not retained for the public service, (b) Government servants who are not in receipt of pay but are remunerated by honoraria, (c) Government servants who are paid from contingencies, (d) Government servants holding posts which have been declared by the authority which created them to be non-pensionable, (e) Holders of all tenure posts in the Medical Department, whether private practice is allowed to them or not, when they do not have an active or suspended lien on any other permanent posts under Government. Note 1.-In case of employees paid from contingencies who are subsequently brought on a regular pensionable establishment by conversion of their posts, one-half of their previous continuous service shall be allowed to count for pension. Note 2. In the case of persons who were holding the posts of attendants prior to 1st April, 1966, one-half of their previous continuous service as attendants, shall be allowed to count for pension.” 6. In this view of the matter, considering the fair stand taken on behalf of the respondent, we are inclined to allow this petition by setting aside the decision of denying pensionary benefits to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had earlier discharged duties as a part-time Librarian from 1 July, 1994 to 24 December, 2004. The petition is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). 1 2019(3)Mh.L.J. 903 8 September, 2026 15.WP14296_2024.DOC 7. The arrears of pension shall be credited to the petitioner’s account as expeditiously as possible and, in any event, within a period of four weeks from the date the copy of this order is made available, with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. 8. Needless to observe that, in the event the petitioner’s proposal for pension is required to be resubmitted, the Management shall resubmit the same, if not already submitted, within a period of one week from today. No costs. (DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.) 8 September, 2026 Signed by: Vidya S. Amin Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 16/09/2026 13:54:20