KUTUBUDDIN HUSEN MANIYAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition the petitioner seeks to challenge, inter alia, the refusal to condone the technical break in the service of the petitioner on the ground that the period exceeds the stipulated time frame of one year and, therefore, the Government had no authority to condone the delay, as sought by the petitioner. The impugned order is dated 29th August, 1990. It has been passed by the Director of Education. The facts giving rise to this petition, briefly, are as follows :

(2.) THE petitioner is a retired Professor in Hindi language. He retired on 30th November, 1988. At the time of his retirement, he was working as a Professor in Bhogawati Mahavidyalaya, Taluka Karvie in Kolhapur District. The petitioner was working as a full-time Assistant Teacher during the period 9th July, 1952 upto 30th June, 1955 in Kolhapur High School, Kolhapur. The said school was recognised. It was aided by the State Government. The petitioner thereafter worked as a full-time Assistant Teacher during the period 1st July, 1955 upto 15th August, 1963 in the New High School, Kolhapur. The said school was also aided and recognised by the State Government. From 16th August, 1963 upto 8th June, 1964 the petitioner worked is a part-time Assistant Teacher/Professor in the said school. At the same time, he was also working as a part-time Lecturer in Hindi in Commerce College, Kolhapur during the period 20th June, 1963 upto 17th June, 1965, in a clear vacancy. The categories of the post in which petitioner served during the above period were in the pattern approved by the State Government. During the period 20th June, 1964 upto 19th June, 1965 the petitioner served as a part-time employee in a clear vacancy in Hindi at Shivraj College of Arts & Commerce and D.S. Kadam Science College in Kolhapur District. The categories of posts in which he served during the above period were in the pattern approved by the State Government. According to the petitioner, from 20th June, 1965 upto 14th June, 1971 the petitioner had served as a full-time employee in the same institution in a clear vacancy. From 15th June, 1971 upto 30th November, 1988, when the petitioner stood retired, he was in the employment of Bhogwati Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Sahunagar at Kurukali as a Lecturer in Hindi, and as a full-time employee in a clear vacancy. At the time of his retirement, the petitioner was in the employment of Bhogawati Mahavidyalaya. Accordingly, from 9th July, 1952 upto 30th November, 1988 the petitioner was in continuous service for 36 years, 4 months and 22 days. However, his pension came to be approved only for the period 20th June, 1965 upto 30th November, 1988 as, according to the respondents, the petitioner had not rendered full service as contemplated by the rules prior to the above period. Under the above circumstances, the petitioner by letter dated 4th October, 1989, addressed to the Education Minister informing that there was technical break of 1 year, 10 months and 4 days which may be condoned. By another letter dated 9th May, 1990 addressed by the petitioner to the Director of Higher Education, the petitioner reiterated the above request. By letter dated 1st June, 1990, the Administrative Officer (State of Maharashtra) had informed the Director of High Education, Pune that his office also recommends condonation of break in service of the petitioner. By the said letter the Administrative Officer stated that he looked into the matter and he recommended condonation of delay on the ground that the period of service rendered by the petitioner during 16th August, 1963 upto 8th June, 1964 i.e, the period of 9 months and 23 days and a further period of 11 days i.e., from 9th June, 1994 upto 19th June, 1994 were requited to be treated as a full-time service and that the said period cannot be counted as part-time particularly in view of the fact that the petitioner had put in the requisite number of lectures which clearly indicates that has worked as a full-timer and not as a part-timer. Now if this period is taken into account than the break in service would definitely fall within the stipulated period of one year in which the Government had the authority to grant relaxation so that the petitioner employee could get the benefit of pension. The letter of the Administrative Office clearly supports the case of the petitioner. The petitioner has clearly mentioned in his representation the number of lectures which he took during the aforesaid period and which clearly indicates that the petitioner has worked as a full timer during the aforesaid period, and if the period of 9 months and 23 days plus the period of 11 days are taken into account, then the total break in service would come within the period of one year and not a period of 1 year, 10 months and 4 days, as stated above in the earlier order passed by the respondents. Under the above circumstances, the petitioner was entitled to get the benefit of condonation. This aspect has not been considered. The letter of the Administrative Officer (State of Maharashtra) referred to at page 16 of the petition has also not been considered by the Pension Authority. If the above period is excluded, then the period for which condonation is required to be sought would certainly fall within the power of the Government i.e. within one year. Taking into account the above facts and circumstances of the case, the following order is passed: