11-WP-7152-2024.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7152 OF 2024 Pune Zilla Va Uccha Madhyamik Shala Granthpal Sangh Pune ...Petitioner Versus The State Of Maharashtra Throu. Its Principal Secretary Education Dept & Anr. ...Respondents _______ Mr. N. V. Bandiwadekar, Senior Advocate with B. S. Nayak for Petitioner. Mr. P. P. Kakade, AGP a/w Ms. Priyanka Chavan, AGP for Respondent-State. _______ CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATE: 21st SEPTEMBER 2026 P.C. 1. Leave to amend and substitute Exhibit ‘A’ in terms of the correct Exhibit is handed over is granted. 2. Let the amendment be carried out within the course of the day. An amended copy of the petition be served on the learned AGP. 3. This petition is filed in a representative capacity, contending that the members of the Petitioner are being deprived of the benefits of the Old Pension Scheme, on the ground that their appointments initially were on part-time aided posts and, later on, they were appointed to permanent full-time aided posts as Librarians. 4. The prayer made in the petition is required to be noted, which reads thus: “a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 7.2.2023 passed by the respondent no. 2 herein it being contrary to law. b) This Hon ble court be pleased to hold that the Government Resolution dated 31.10.2005 is not applicable to the petitioners. Page 1 of 3 Ajit Pathrikar AJIT RAMESH PATHRIKAR Digitally signed by AJIT RAMESH PATHRIKAR Date: 2026.09.24 15:11:09 +0530 11-WP-7152-2024.DOC c) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to grant to the petitioners the benefits under the old pension and provident fund scheme by allotting them the provident fund account number by taking into consideration their initial service as part time librarians and subsequent continuous service rendered by them as permanent full time librarians and consequential benefits. d) Cost of this petition e) For such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper” 5. At the outset, Mr. Bandiwadekar, learned Senior Advocate, who has been appointed as amicus, submits that the issue is no more res integra in view of the recent pronouncement of this Court in the case of Dadasaheb Sada Kadam vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (Writ Petition No.11651 of 2023), which was a similar case where the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme was denied to the Petitioner who was initially appointed as a part-time Librarian on an aided post and, later on, appointed to a full-time post. 6. The Division Bench, considering the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (“MCS (Pension) Rules”), Rule 19 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981and the several decisions in that regard, took the view that the benefit of part-time service in the manner understood by Rule 57 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules is required to be granted. The relevant observations in that regard are required to be noted, which read thus: “25. A cumulative reading of the aforesaid rules would indicate that such rules have taken into consideration every possible situation in regard to the counting of qualifying services, which even includes an employee holding a temporary Government servant post rendered without interruption by confirmation, counting of service on contract etc. Also in regard to the employees who are subsequently brought on a regular pensionable establishment by conversion of their posts, one- half of their previous continuous service is allowed to be counted for pension as provided under Note 1 to Rule 57 of the MCS (Pension) Rules. Page 2 of 3 Ajit Pathrikar 11-WP-7152-2024.DOC 26. In our opinion, applying the aforesaid rules, necessarily the part-time service of the petitioner rendered from the year 1995 till 31 March 2006 (i.e. till his upgradation to the full-time post of librarian) was required to be reckoned for the purpose of considering his qualifying service for pension. Thus, notionally such service of 11 years (i.e. from 12 June 1995 till 31 March 2006) will be required to be counted/considered on applicability of Rule 57 of the MCS (Pension) Rules, read with Note 1 by taking into consideration half of such service i.e. period of approximately 5 years 4 months would be required to be notionally accepted and counted towards the petitioner's pensionable service and not from 01 April 2006 as contended by respondent nos. 3 and 4. Accordingly, the period of about more than 5 years 4 months anterior to 31 March 2006 was required to be considered to calculate the qualifying service of the petitioner for grant of pension. This would bring about a situation that the petitioner had become eligible/qualified for pension from or about November 2000, which was certainly prior to the cut off date 1 November, 2005. 27. If this be so, to say that the petitioner's qualifying service would be required to be taken into consideration from 01 April 2006 i.e. the date he was absorbed on the post of full-time librarian, would in fact become contrary to the provisions of the MCS (Pension) Rules as noted by us hereinabove and particularly of Rule 57, Note 1. Thus, in our clear opinion, the petitioner had become entitled for pension under the old pension scheme from the period in or about November 2000.” 7. The learned AGP on behalf of the State would not dispute the aforesaid legal position. We are thus of the opinion that the case of each of the members of the Petitioner will be required to be taken into consideration by the respective Education Authorities for grant of pension, applying the law laid down by this Court in Dadasaheb Sada Kadam (supra) and grant the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme to the members of the Petitioner who become eligible for such grant. The concerned authority shall consider the individual facts of the case for independent orders to be passed in that regard. 8. All contentions of the parties in that regard are expressly kept open. 9. Disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs. (DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.) Ajit Pathrikar