6_WP_11288_2026.DOC Prasad IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.11288 OF 2026 Anil Sahebrao Gharate ...Petitioner Versus State Of Maharashtra through the Secretary & Ors. ...Respondents _______ Ms Pranita Pramod Hingmire, for the Petitioner. Ms Nisha M. Mehra, AGP for Respondent - State. _______ CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATE: 21st SEPTEMBER 2026 P.C. 1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 6th May 2026 passed by the Education Officer-Respondent No. 4, whereby the Petitioner has been denied the benefits of the Old Pension Scheme and other pensionary benefits, on the ground that his appointment was initially on a part-time aided post and, later, he was appointed to a permanent full-time aided post as Librarian. 2. The prayer made in the petition is required to be noted, which reads 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 06/05/2026 issued by Respondent No. 4 thereby refusing to grant the Old Pension Scheme and other pensionary 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 01/02/1995 to 6_WP_11288_2026.DOC 31/03/2006) as qualifying service for computing pension and other pensionary 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 pensionary 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. 7,37,800/- (Seven Lakhs Thirty Seven Thousand Eight Hundred only) along with interest accrued thereon which has been deducted towards Gratuity 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 repay/refund to the Petitioner an amount of Rs. 7,74,000/- (Seven Lakhs Seventy Four Thousand only) along with interest accrued thereon accumulated towards leave encashment within stipulated time. f) 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; g) for ad-interim and interim reliefs in terms of prayer clauses (c), (d), (e) and (f) above; h) for the cost of the petition; i) for such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.” 3. The Petitioner’s case is that he retired as full-time Librarian from Respondent No. 6 School on 31 March 2026. He was initially appointed as Part-Time Librarian in Janata Vidyalaya, Mulher, run by Dang Seva Mandal-Respondent No. 5, by order dated 25 January 1995 w.e.f. 1 February 1995, and was reappointed for the academic year 1996-97 by order dated 10 June 1996 w.e.f. 1 June 1996, his services continuing thereafter w.e.f. 1 April 1998. He was transferred to Dr. Vijay Bidarkar High School and Junior College-Respondent No. 6 School as part-time librarian by order dated 22nd December 2004 w.e.f. 1 January 2005, and his post was thereafter upgraded, he being appointed Full-Time Librarian in Respondent No. 6 School w.e.f. 1 April 2006 by order dated 17 January 2007, approved by Respondent No. 4 on 23 January 2007. He was later transferred to Janata Vidyalaya, Abhona from 19 June 2012 to 14 July 2014, and again to Respondent No. 6 School w.e.f. 15 July 2014, from where he retired on 31 March 2026. Page 2 of 5 6_WP_11288_2026.DOC 4. Respondent No. 4 had, by letter dated 14 February 2006, made the Old Pension Scheme applicable to the Petitioner and opened his GPF account, regular deductions being made thereto; his Provident Fund amount was returned to him in April 2026, but gratuity of Rs. 7,37,800/- and leave encashment of Rs. 7,74,000/- towards 300 pending leaves, together with interest accrued thereon, remain unpaid. Respondent No. 6 forwarded the Petitioner’s pension case to Respondent No. 4 on 19 December 2025. However, Respondent No. 4, by the impugned letter dated 6 May 2026 (received by the Petitioner on 20 May 2026), informed Respondent No. 6 that the Petitioner became a full-time Librarian only w.e.f. 1 April 2006 pursuant to approval granted by order dated 20 February 2007, and that since he became full-time after 1 November 2005, the Old Pension Scheme was not applicable to him. 5. Heard Ms Pranita P. Hingmire, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, who contended that the impugned order dated 6 May 2026 is illegal as the Petitioner’s initial appointment was prior to 1 November 2005 and the Old Pension Scheme shall apply to him. It is also submitted that this Court’s rulings in Shivappa Bembele v. State of Maharashtra, Shalini Akkarbote, Darshana Gaikwad, Prema Herkal and Vina Upasani squarely cover the issue. where similarly placed librarians were granted pensionary benefits by counting part-time service. She thus urged the Court to allow the petition. 6. The issue relating to the application of the Old Pension Scheme 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 6_WP_11288_2026.DOC Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (“MCS (Pension) Rules”), Rule 19 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 and a series of decisions in that regard, has taken 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. 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 will be required 6_WP_11288_2026.DOC to be taken into consideration by the respective Education Authorities for grant of pension, applying the law laid down by this Court in the above-mentioned judgment and grant the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme to the members of the Petitioner who become eligible for such grant. 8. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, the order dated 6th 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 paid pension as per the rules. 9. Disposed of 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 18:27:06 +0530