14_WP_10544_2026.DOC Prasad IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10544 OF 2026 Vijay Balram Pagare ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra Through The Sec. Ministry of Education & Ors. ...Respondents _______ Ms. Pranita P. Hingmire for Petitioner. Ms. D. S. Deshmukh, AGP for Respondent-State. _______ CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATE: 21st SEPTEMBER 2026 P.C. 1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 29th May 2026 passed by the Education Officer-Respondent No. 4, whereby the Petitioner has been denied the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme and other pensionary benefits, on the ground that his appointment as a full-time Librarian is of a date after 1st November 2005 and that his part-time service from 20th April 1995 to 31st March 2006 is not admissible for computing pensionary benefits. 2. The prayers made in the petition are required to be noted, which read thus: a. “This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 29/05/2026 issued by Respondent No. 4 thereby refusing to grant the Old Pension Scheme and other pensioner benefits to the Petitioner; b. That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to consider half of the service rendered by the Petitioner as part time librarian (from 20/04/1995 to 31/03/2006) as qualifying service for 14_WP_10544_2026.DOC computing pension and other pensionery benefits; c. That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to reconsider and reprocess the claim of the Petitioner for grant of pension and other pensionery benefits within stipulated time. d. That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to repay/refund to the Petitioner an amount of Rs. 6,69,668/- (Six lakhs Sixty-Nine Thousand Six Hundred Sixty-Eight only) along with interest payable, which has been deducted towards National Pension System, within stipulated time; e. That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to release the provisional pension to the Petitioner; f. for ad-interim and interim reliefs in terms of prayer clauses (c), (d) and (e) above; g. for the costs of the petition; and h. for such other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.” 3. It is the Petitioner’s case that he was initially appointed as a Part-Time Librarian in Janata Vidyalaya, Aghar, run by Respondent No. 5-Nashik District Maratha Vidya Prasarak Samaj, by an order dated 11th April 1995 w.e.f. 17th April 1995, and continued in that capacity without interruption from 1st April 1998. His post was later upgraded, when he was transferred to Respondent No. 6 School (also run by Respondent No. 5) as a full-time Librarian w.e.f. 1st February 2007, approved by Respondent No. 4 on 20th February 2007. He retired therefrom on 30th April 2023. 4. Pursuant to this Court’s order dated 27th February 2025 passed in Writ Petition No. 2345 of 2014 and connected matters, his pension proposal, along with certificate confirming that his post was 100% aided from the date of initial appointment, was forwarded to Respondent No. 4 on 28th October 2025. By the impugned order dated 29th May 2026, Respondent No. 4 held that as the Petitioner became a full-time Librarian, only after 1st November 2005, he was 14_WP_10544_2026.DOC denied the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme, treating his part-time service being not qualified to be computed to reckon the qualifying service. The Petitioner further states that Rs. 6,69,668/- has been deducted from his salary under the National Pension System/DCPS, which he claims refund of, together with interest. 5. We have heard Ms Pranita P. Hingmire, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has contended that the impugned communication dated 9th June 2022 is illegal as the Petitioner’s initial appointment was prior to 1st November 2005 and old pension rule shall apply to him. It is also submitted that the issue is squarely covered by this Court’s rulings in Shivappa Bembele v. State of Maharashtra, Shalini Akkarbote, Darshana Gaikwad, Prema Herkal and Vina Upasani, who were similarly placed librarians and who were granted pensionary benefits by counting part-time service. It is further submitted that Respondent No. 3’s opening of a DCPS account and recovery of Rs. 6,83,268/- was illegal, especially as Respondent No. 3 itself forwarded the pension case to Respondent No. 2. On these contentions, learned counsel prays that the impugned order be quashed and the reliefs sought in the petition be granted. 6. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the record, we may on that observe that the issue in the present matter is no longer res-integra. In Dadasaheb Sada Kadam vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (Writ Petition No. 11651 of 2023), 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, 1981 and the several decisions in that regard, has taken a view, that the benefit of part-time service in the 14_WP_10544_2026.DOC manner as or ordained 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. 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 cutoff 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 the Petitioner needs to be taken into consideration by the concerned Education Authorities, for grant of pension, applying the law as laid down by this Court, in the above-mentioned decision and grant the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme to the Petitioner who becomes eligible for such grant. Page 4 of 5 14_WP_10544_2026.DOC 8. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, the order dated 29th May 2026 issued by Respondent No.4 is set aside. The service rendered by the Petitioner as a part-time librarian shall be taken into consideration, along with the entire service rendered as a full-time librarian, for the purpose of qualifying service for pensionary benefits. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 are directed to submit the pension proposal to Respondent No.4-Education Officer within a period of three weeks from today, if not already submitted, and the concerned authorities are directed to decide the same and take further steps to disburse the pension to the Petitioner under the Old Pension Scheme within a period of two weeks thereafter. The Petitioner is thus directed to be accordingly paid pension calculated as per the Rules. 9. The writ petition stand allowed in the aforesaid terms. No costs. (DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.) PRASAD RAJENDRASING RAJPUT Digitally signed by PRASAD RAJENDRASING RAJPUT Date: 2026.09.28 11:14:00 +0530