1 of 6 9.WP.6245.2026.STM.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6245 OF 2026 Mrs.Sulbha Ramesh Kulkarni, Age 63 years, R/o.B-104, Ganesh Paradise, Kala Nagar, Near Raj Sarthi Society, Indira Nagar, Nashik-422009. Petitioner versus 1. The State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Ministry of Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai-4---32. 2. The Account General (A&E-I), Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. 3. The Deputy Director of Education, Nashik Region, Nashik. 4. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nashik. 5. Nashik Shikshan Prasarak Mandal through its Chairman/Secretary, J.S.Rungata High School, Nashik-422002. 6. The Principal, J.S.Rungata High School, having officeat Ashok Stambh, Nashik-422102. Respondents _______ Ms.Pranita P.Hingmire for Petitioner. Mr.B.V.Samant, Additional Govt.Pleader for Respondent. _______ CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & AARTI SATHE, JJ. DATE: 27th July 2026 P.C. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying for the following substantive reliefs : “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 30/12/2025 issued by Respondent no.3 thereby refusing to grant the old pension scheme and other pensionary benefits to the Petitioner; Corrected version of order dated 27-7-2026, pursuant to Speaking to Minutes order dated 5-8-2026 M.S.Thatte MANISH SURESHRAO THATTE Digitally signed by MANISH SURESHRAO THATTE Date: 2026.08.06 10:19:02 +0530 2 of 6 9.WP.6245.2026.STM.DOC 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 27-11-1996 to 27-12-2007) 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 release the provisional pension to the Petitioner.” 2. The primary grievance of the Petitioner is in respect of refusal by Respondent no.3 to apply the old pension scheme and consequential pensionary benefits on the ground that the Petitioner’s appointment as full time Librarian was after 1st November 2005 and hence the part time service of the Petitioner from 26th November 1996 to 27th December 2007 was held not admissible for old pension scheme and pensionary benefits. 3. The facts which are relevant are as follows : (i) On 27th November 1996, the Petitioner was appointed as a part time Librarian for the academic year 1996-97 in Smt.C & A Chandak Kanya Vidyalaya, Sinnar run and managed by Respondent no.4, which received grant in aid from the State Government. The Petitioner was again appointed on the same post by an appointment order dated 9th June 1997 for the academic year 1997-98. On 13th February 1997 the Petitioner’s service as part time Librarian was approved by order of even date and thereafter by an order dated 18th October 1997 by Respondent no.4. All the aforesaid three orders i.e. the orders dated 13th February 1997, 9th June 1997 and 18th October 1997 passed by Respondent no.4, confirmed Corrected version of order dated 27-7-2026, pursuant to Speaking to Minutes order dated 5-8-2026 M.S.Thatte 3 of 6 9.WP.6245.2026.STM.DOC the services of the Petitioner as part time Librarian for the academic year 1996-97 and 1997-98; (ii) On 11th December 1999 the Respondent no.5-Management passed a resolution of even date and provided continuity of service to those employees who had completed two years of service in the year 1999. The Petitioner was also granted continuity of service by order of Respondent no.5 dated 28th April 2000; (iii) On 26th December 2007 the Petitioner was promoted as a full time Librarian with effect from 27th December 2007 by order of Respondent no.5 of even date and Respondent no.4 also granted approval to the aforesaid appointment of the Petitioner as full time Librarian by order dated 27th February 2008; (iv) It is the Petitioner’s contention that the Principal i.e. Respondent No.6 had forwarded a proposal to Respondent no.3 through Respondent no.4 in respect of Petitioner’s pension claim. It is, however, Petitioner’s contention that the Defined Contribution Pension Scheme (`DCPS’) was made applicable to the Petitioner in the year 2007 and her account was opened from March-2017; (v) On 31st October 2020 the Petitioner retired from the service of Respondent No.6 school and in May-2022 the amount collected under DCPS scheme from the Petitioner by way of her contribution, was returned back to the Petitioner; Corrected version of order dated 27-7-2026, pursuant to Speaking to Minutes order dated 5-8-2026 M.S.Thatte 4 of 6 9.WP.6245.2026.STM.DOC (vi) On 21st July 2025, the Respondent no.2 through letter of even date sought clarification from the Petitioner whether the position on which she was appointed, was fully aided or not, and further sought confirmation about her date of appointment. The letter stated that the pension case of the Petitioner was put on hold subject to the compliance of information sought from her. The Petitioner was asked to resubmit the said information for the case to be reopened; (vii) The Petitioner resubmitted all the particulars sought by Respondent no.3. On 26th August 2025, the Respondent no.6 submitted a certificate of even date certifying that the post on which the Petitioner was appointed was 100% aided by virtue of letter of the year 1964; (viii) On 30th December 2025 the Respondent no.3 informed the Petitioner that since her appointment as full time Librarian was after 1st November 2005, the Petitioner was eligible for New Pension Scheme (`NPS’) as per Maharashtra Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1982 (for short `Pension Rules’). 4. It is in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts that the Petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of Respondent no.3 holding that the Petitioner is ineligible for old pension scheme and thereby denying her the benefits of her part time service rendered from 27th November 1996 to 27th December 2007 for the purposes of calculating her pensionary benefits in the old pension scheme. 5. Heard Ms.Pranita P.Hingmire for Petitioner and Mr.B.V.Samant, Additional Govt.Pleader for the Respondents-State. Corrected version of order dated 27-7-2026, pursuant to Speaking to Minutes order dated 5-8-2026 M.S.Thatte 5 of 6 9.WP.6245.2026.STM.DOC 6. At the outset, the parties are at ad idem that the controversy involved in the present petition is covered by a series of judgments rendered by this Court in the following cases : a. Shivappa s/o Bhujanappa Bembele Vs. State of Maharashtra – 2005(3)- Mh.L.J.-709. b. Jyoti Prakash Chaugule Vs. State of Maharashtra – WP.2354/2012. c. Shalini w/o Asaram Akkarbote Vs. State of Maharashtra – WP.8289/2013. d. Rohini Shashikant Oak Vs. State of Maharashtra and others – WP.5268/2025. e. Mone Rashmi Shriram Vs. State of Maharashtra and others - WP.13220/2016. f. Darshana Adikrao Gaikwad Vs. State of Maharashtra and others – WP.5421/2021. g. Prema Herkal Vs. State of Maharashtra -WP.3719/2019. h. Purushottam Shirsekar Vs. State of Maharashtra – WP.2538/2021. i. Vina Upasani Vs. State of Maharashtra -WP.3386/2021. j. Vanita Bhadule Vs. State of Maharashtra – WP(L).18703/2024. 7. In the aforesaid decisions, a consistent view has been taken that the part time service rendered by an employee is required to be considered for calculating pensionable service period and the date of appointment as part time Librarian has to be taken into consideration for the same. The provisions of the Pension Rules and more particularly Rules 30, 49, note 1 below Rule 51 of the Pension Rules being applicable to the Petitioner and she is entitled to the old pension scheme and pensionary benefits according thereto. Considering the aforesaid settled legal Corrected version of order dated 27-7-2026, pursuant to Speaking to Minutes order dated 5-8-2026 M.S.Thatte 6 of 6 9.WP.6245.2026.STM.DOC position and undisputed position agreed by both the learned counsel that the aforesaid decisions cover the case of the Petitioner in the present petition, we deem it appropriate to pass the following order, which will meet the ends of justice. ORDER (i) The letter/order dated 30th December 2025 issued by Respondent no.3 refusing to grant old pension scheme and the benefits thereunder to the Petitioner, is hereby quashed and set aside; (ii) The part time service rendered by the Petitioner as part time Librarian from 27th November 1996 to 27th December 2007 shall be taken into consideration while computing the pensionable service period and after re-fixation of the Petitioner, she be granted other pensionary benefits in accordance with old pension scheme; (iii) The Petitioner shall be entitled to the benefits of old pension scheme prevailing prior to 1st November 2005; (iv) The aforesaid directions be complied with within a period of two months from the date of uploading of this order; (v) The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs. (AARTI SATHE, J.) (G.S.KULKARNI, J.) Corrected version of order dated 27-7-2026, pursuant to Speaking to Minutes order dated 5-8-2026 M.S.Thatte