DIGAMBAR DOMAJI SAHARE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed on 7/7/1993 as a Part Time Physical Education Teacher. His appointment initially was till 30/5/1995. The said appointment was approved by the Education Officer on 21/10/1993. The petitioner continued in employment till 14/10/2003 when his services were orally terminated. In the proceedings initiated by the petitioner seeking reinstatement, the School Tribunal dismissed the appeal preferred by him on 24/1/2005. This Court however allowed Writ Petition No.1733 of 2006 on 6/1/2011 and directed reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity in service and arrears of salary. This adjudication has attained finality and after the petitioner was reinstated, he rendered service till superannuation at the respondent no.4-School/Junior College. Since the petitioner was appointed prior to 1/11/2005 he claimed that he was governed by the Old Pension Scheme which operated till 31/10/2005. Since the petitioner was not granted the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme he has approached this Court.

(3.) Shri P.N. Shende, learned counsel for the petitioner after referring to the aforesaid facts submitted that the School/Junior College where the petitioner was serving was receiving 100% grant-in-aid. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed prior to the cut-off date which was 1/11/2005. Merely because the initial appointment was on part-time post the same would not deprive the petitioner of the benefits under the Old Pension Scheme. Placing reliance on the decision in Purushottam Harishchandra Shirsekar and Another Versus State of Maharashtra and Others [2022(2) Mh.L.J. 390] it was submitted that the petitioner was entitled for the benefit under the Old Pension Scheme. He also invited attention to the decision in Writ Petition No.5421 of 2017 [Darshana Adikrao Gaikwad Versus State of Maharashtra and Others] decided at Nagpur on 9/7/2018 to contend that part-time service rendered would be required to be taken into consideration to the extent of 50% while calculating the pensionary benefits. It is thus submitted that the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.