18-WP-6275-2026.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6275 OF 2026 Bharati Hanumant Thombare ...Petitioner Versus The State Of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents _______ Mr. Rahul Kadam for Petitioner. Mrs. M. P. Thakur, AGP for Respondents. _______ CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATE: 07th SEPTEMBER 2026 P.C. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking the following substantive reliefs: “[A] That this Hon'ble Court under its Civil Appellate Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India 1950, be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 05th January 2026 passed by Respondent No. 3 Deputy Director of Education and thereby denial of the old pension benefit to the present Petitioner. [B] That this Hon'ble Court under its Civil Appellate Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India 1950, Respondents may be directed that old pension benefit may be given to the present Petitioner for the reasons stated in this Petition by allowing her Pension Proposal.” 3. The case of the Petitioner is that she was appointed on 19th August 1994 as a part-time teacher on a 100% grant-in-aid post by Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Thereafter, admittedly, on 15th June 2009, the Petitioner was granted appointment as a full-time teacher at Respondent No.5-School on a fully aided post. The Petitioner retired from service on 31st August 2025. Page 1 of 4 Ajit 18-WP-6275-2026.DOC 4. The pension proposal was submitted by Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to Respondent No.3-Deputy Director of Education, Pune Region, on 30th April 2025. By the impugned communication dated 5th January 2026, the Petitioner’s pension proposal was rejected by Respondent No.3 on the ground that the Petitioner had earlier been appointed as a part-time teacher and was granted a full time appointment only on 15th June 2009, being appointed as a full-time teacher. Hence, the Petitioner would not become entitled to pension under the Old Pension Scheme. 5. Mr. Rahul Kadam, learned counsel for the Petitioner, would contend that the impugned communication is ex facie arbitrary and it is also in the teeth of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court and several decisions which interpret the provisions of Rule 19 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, as also the relevant Rules under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, whereby an employee who was granted an appointment as a part-time teacher on a fully aided post and later on was granted an appointment as a full-time teacher on an aided post would become entitled to pension under the Old Pension Scheme by taking into consideration the tenures spent as a part-time teacher. 6. In the present case, admittedly the Petitioner’s tenure from 10th September 1997 to 14th June 2009 was on the part-time post. Such period has not been considered for the purpose of grant of pension. Considering the provisions of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, more particularly Rule 57 and Note 2 thereunder, would come to the Petitioner’s benefit, to the effect that necessarily, the Ajit 18-WP-6275-2026.DOC part-time service rendered by her to the extent of weightage of 50% of such service rendered on the part-time post would be required to be taken into consideration for grant of the Old Pension Scheme. Thus, the tenure of service from 10th September 1997 to 14th June 2009 would be required to be taken into consideration and 50% of the said period would be required to be added to the Petitioner’s regular service as a full-time teacher with effect from 15th April 2009. Thus, if such 50% period is taken into consideration, then certainly the Petitioner’s appointment would fall prior to the cut-off date of 1st November 2005. 7. The legal issue involved in the present matter has already been settled by a Full Bench of this Court in the matter of Deshmukh Dilipkumar Bhagwan & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra Through Chief Secretary, General Administration Department & Ors1. The Full Bench was concerned with an issue as to whether employees who are appointed prior to 1st November 2005 in the aided recognized, primary, secondary and higher secondary schools as well as colleges receiving less than 100% grant in aid as on 1st November 2005 were entitled to the benefit of old pension scheme under the pension rules and commutation of Pension Rules or whether they will be governed by the New Pension Scheme under the GR of 2005. The Full Bench of this Court, in its decision dated 30th April 2019, answered the issues in paragraph No.37 of the Judgment, which read as under: “37. Under these circumstances, we answer the Reference as under: Question No. 1: In the context of the right of an employee of private school or college of education to receive pensionary benefits and the corresponding liability of the Government to 1 2019 (3) Mh.LJ (FB) 903 Ajit 18-WP-6275-2026.DOC pay the same, only those schools and colleges of education which are receiving 100% grant-in-aid can be termed as aided institutions. Question No. 2: The employees who were appointed prior to 1-11-2005 in aided recognized primary, secondary schools as well as colleges of education which were receiving less than 100% grant-in-aid as on 1-11-2005 would be governed by the DCP scheme. Question No. 3: Similar will be the situation of the employees who were appointed prior to 1-11- 2005 in aided primary, secondary and higher secondary schools as well as the col- leges of education which were receiving less than 100% grant-in-aid as on 1-11- 2005 but which became 100% aided before 29-11-2010 would also be governed by the DCP scheme.” 8. In view of the aforesaid clear position in law that the period of part-time service rendered by the Petitioner would be required to be taken into consideration, would entitle the Petitioner to the benefit under the Old Pension Scheme. Accordingly, the petition would be required to be allowed. It is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (A) and (B). 9. Let the arrears of pension along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum be released in favour of the Petitioner within four weeks from the date this order is uploaded. (DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.) Ajit AJIT RAMESH PATHRIKAR Digitally signed by AJIT RAMESH PATHRIKAR Date: 2026.09.08 15:25:49 +0530