{1} wp12116-26.doc drp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.12116 OF 2026 Suryabhan Natha Botule PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and Others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. Balaji S. Dambe, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. S. R. Wakle, AGP for Respondent - State ....... [CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, & ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. J.] DATE : 15 th SEPTEMBER, 2026 ORDER : 1. By this Petition, the Petitioner seeks directions to the Respondents to consider 50% service rendered by him as Part Time Librarian from 28.03.1992 to 10.06.2006 and thereafter as Full Time Librarian till 1st June, 2026 as qualifying service for pension and pay the pension and arrears of pension. 2. The Petitioner was appointed as a Part Time Librarian in private aided school i.e. Shahu Vidyalaya, Jaikwadi, Taluka Paithan, on 28th March, 1992. He was made Full Time Librarian with effect from 3rd August, 2006. The Petitioner stood retired on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 31st May, 2026:BHC-AUG:42680-DB {2} wp12116-26.doc 2026. The Petitioner has placed reliance on Rule 57, Note-1 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. It is further urged that the Petitioner is governed by the pension scheme prevailing prior to 31st October, 2005. 3. The controversy involved in the present case is covered by the decision of this Court dated 9th July, 2018 in Writ Petition No. 5421 of 2017 (Nagpur Bench), which takes into consideration the earlier decisions also (consistent view taken by this Court). The decision holds that the Petitioner therein is entitled to claim 50% of the part time service rendered by him for the purpose of pension and date of appointment as part time librarian has to be taken into consideration for the purpose of pension. Paragraph 4 of the said decision is relevant and it is reproduced below: “4. We have gone through the Government Resolution dated 31.10.2005 and we do not find that Clause 4 (b) therein makes any distinction between the Part Time and Full Time employees. It states that the decision contained in the said Government Resolution shall mutatis mutandis apply to the employees who are recruited on or before 1.11.2005, to whom the existing Pension Scheme or General Provident Scheme would be applicable. Undisputedly, the husband of the Petitioner was recruited on 1.7.1998 as a Part Time Librarian and we find that the stand of the Respondents is that Clause 4 (b) contains the recruitment as a Full Time employee as on 1.11.2005, is artificial and it is not borne out from the said Government Resolution.” {3} wp12116-26.doc 4. The stand taken by the Respondents that the date of appointment as full time librarian can only be considered, as it is a fresh appointment. This contention has already been rejected. We are also unable to accept this plea that the appointment as full time librarian is a fresh appointment. The service of the Petitioner has to be counted from the first date of appointment and therefore the pension scheme prevailing prior to 1st November, 2005 would be applicable to the Petitioner. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed and the following order is passed: ORDER a. 50% service rendered by the Petitioner as part time librarian from 28th March, 1992 till 1st June, 2006 shall be taken into consideration while computing the pensionable service rendered by the Petitioner. b. The Petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of pension scheme prevailing prior to 1st November, 2005. c. Pension and consequential pensionary benefits including arrears of the pension be paid to the {4} wp12116-26.doc Petitioner from the initial date of appointment and this exercise shall be carried out within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. [ ABASAHEB D. SHINDE ] [ NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI ] JUDGE JUDGE drp/wp12116-26.doc