WP No.12135 of 2019.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.12135 OF 2019 Sau. Sunita w/o. Shamrao Deshmukh, Age : 74 years, Occ. Retired Teacher, r/o. Vidya Nagar, Parbhani ..Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032 and others ..Respondents ---- Mr.V.D.Salunke, Advocate for petitioner Mr.A.A.A.Khan, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2 Mr.M.P.Kale, Advocate for respondent nos.4 and 5 ---- CORAM : R.G.AVACHAT AND ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : DECEMBER 24, 2025 ORDER :- This petition is filed for the following main reliefs:- (B) To issue writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate directions in the like nature, it may be hold and declare that the petitioner has rendered qualifying services for more than 10 years and therefore eligible and entitled for pensionary benefits as per Chapter V, Rule 30 of Maharashtra Civil Service Pension Rules, 1982; (C) To issue writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate directions in the like nature, the Respondents may kindly be 2025:BHC-AUG:37762-DB 2 WP No.12135 of 2019 directed to grant, sanction and pay the pensionary benefits to the petitioner from the date of retirement to till today and go on paying till she is entitled for, by setting aside letter dated 26.05.2017 issued by Respondent No. 2, which is at Exhibit "Q"; (C-1) To Issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 14/9/2022 passed by the Commissioner of Handicap welfare Pune Ex.Q-1. The case of the petitioner, in short, is that she had rendered continuous service of little over ten years and is, therefore, entitled/eligible for grant of pension. 2. According to the petitioner, she was for the first time appointed way back in June, 1990. It was an appointment as Special Teacher for one year. In July, 1991, she was again given appointment for one more year. The petitioner continued in service even after 01.04.1992 but no separate appointment order was issued after the initial period of her appointment was over. She, therefore, filed Writ Petition No.1028 of 1994 seeking direction to continue her in service as a trained teacher. The Writ Petition was compromised. The petitioner was given appointment from 3 WP No.12135 of 2019 01.02.1995. The respondent – Social Welfare Department also granted approval to her appointment/appointments. Same is also reflected in her service book. 3. The petitioner claimed to have continued in the service until she retired on superannuation on 30.04.2004. Her pension case was also prepared and submitted by respondent no.5 to respondent no.3 – Social Welfare Department. Her pension case was not approved for one or the other reason. Even she was required to approach the Lok Ayukta of the State of Maharashtra. The petitioner was, ultimately, informed that since she did not render continuous service of ten years, she was not eligible for grant of pension. 4. Pending the Writ Petition, the State Government took a call to consider, whether the powers under Rule 54(1) and (2) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (“Pension Rules, for short), could be exercised. The State Government, however, refused to condone/relax the condition of continuous service of not less than 10 years. The order issued in that regard indicates that no convincing reason has been given in support thereof. It has only been observed that the petitioner did not render the pensionable service. 4 WP No.12135 of 2019 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, firstly, relied on Rule 30 of the Pension Rules. According to him, the service rendered by the petitioner on the very post for little over two years in the year 1990-92, should have been counted for grant of pension. In the alternative, he would submit that the State authorities ought to have considered the petitioner’s case sympathetically to exercise the powers under Rule 54(1) and (2) Pension Rules. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents reiterated their stand of the petitioner to have not rendered continues service of not less than ten years. She has, therefore, rightly not been granted pension. 7. We have perused the documents filed in support of the petitioner’s claim. The petitioner was first appointed on 16.06.1990 for a period of one year. Then, on 01.07.1991, she was appointed in leave vacancy of one Shri. V.J.Shelar on the consolidated pay of Rs.300. Again, on 01.04.1992, she was given fresh appointment for one year. The record further indicates that the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No.1028 of 1994. It was compromised. The basic terms of the compromise reads thus:- 5 WP No.12135 of 2019 1. That, Smt. Sunita Shamrao Deshmukh was initially appointed as a Special Teacher in the training vacancy under order dated 16.6.1990 and under order dated 1.4.92 for the period mentioned therein and as referred in the writ petition No. 1028 of 1994. 2. The Director of Social Welfare Maharashtra State Pune sanctioned one post of Vice Principal and by virtue of the seniority Shri.V.J.Shelar Assistant Teacher same to be promoted as Vice-Principle, and the vacancy of the Asst. Teacher created shall be given to Smt. Sunita Deshmukh by way of giving appointment from 1.2.1995, subject conditions that Smt. Deshmukh shall not claim any post arrears as claimed in the petition. Only she is entitled for salary from 1.2.1995 to onwards. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by this court in terms of the settlement between the parties. The entries in the service book of the petitioner also indicate her initial appointment in June, 1990. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed with effect from 01.02.1995. She continued in service until the date of superannuation, i.e. 30.04.2004. The petitioner was held to be not eligible for pension since her service tenure from 01.02.1995 to 30.04.2004 fell short of ten years. 8. Rule 30 of the Pension Rules reads thus:- 30. Commencement of qualifying service. Subject to the provisions of these rules, qualifying service of a Government servant shall commence from the 6 WP No.12135 of 2019 date he takes charge of the post to which he is first appointed either substantively or in an officiating or temporary capacity: Provided that at the time of retirement he shall hold substantively a permanent post in Government service or holds a suspended lien or certificate of permanency. Provided further that, in cases where a temporary Government servant retires on superannuation or on being declared permanently incapacitated for further Government service by the appropriate medical authority after having rendered temporary service of not less than 10 years, or voluntary after the completion of 20 years of qualifying service, shall be eligible for grant of superannuation, Invalid or as the case may be, Retiring Pension; Retirement Guaranty; and family Pension at the same scale as admissible to permanent Government servant. Exception- The rules regarding grant of terminals benefits to temporary Government servant except those mentioned in the second proviso who retire being confirmed in any post in Government service are embodied in Appendix II. 9. The petitioner impliedly admitted the legal position of having not been eligible for pension on account of not completing continuous service of not less than ten years. 10. The record, undoubtedly, indicates that it was the case of the petitioner to have rendered continuous service for a period of nine years four months. She was short of eight months continuous service for being eligible for pension. Admittedly, the petitioner had rendered not less than two years service on the very post in the year 7 WP No.12135 of 2019 1990-92. We, therefore, consider her case sympathetically. The petitioner was 75 years of age when this petition was filed. By now, she is eighty plus. 11. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the respondents/authorities to grant the petitioner pension considering her to have rendered continuous service of not less than ten years on the date of her superannuation. Since the petitioner is granted relief as an exception, the authorities shall grant her the actual monetary benefits from the date of filing of the present Writ Petition. With these directions, present Writ Petition stands disposed of. [ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.] [R.G. AVACHAT, J.] ……….. KBP