One-Half Service Rendered As Part-Time Employee Shall Be Considered For Awarding Pension: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court held that one half of the service rendered as a part-time employee shall be taken into consideration for the purpose of awarding pension.
The Court had to determine whether the conversion of the Petitioner's part-time service into continuous/full-time service for the grant of pensionary benefits was permissible in law. The Nagpur Bench directed that the part-time service rendered by the Petitioner to be counted towards half of the service rendered by him for the purpose of qualifying service for retirement and pensionary benefits under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982.
A Division Bench of Justice Nitin W. Sambre and Justice Vrushali V. Joshi observed that “one half services rendered by the petitioner as a part-time Teacher, shall be taken into consideration for the purpose of award of pension along with the period for which he had worked as a full-time Lecturer. Accordingly, the petitioner can be said to be entitled for pensionary benefits.”
Advocate B.G. Kulkarni appeared for the Petitioner, while Assistant Government Pleader N.S. Rao represented the Respondents.
The Petitioner was appointed as a part-time junior college teacher in 1999. In 2007, the Petitioner was appointed as a full-time junior college teacher, and his service continued uninterrupted until his retirement in 2024. He sought inclusion of his part-time service as qualifying service for pension under the old pension scheme, arguing that part of the service should be counted as per the rule that allows one-half of part-time service to be considered for pensionary benefits.
The Respondents, including the State Government and the Deputy Director of Education, argued that the Petitioner’s part-time appointments were temporary and non-permanent. They further contended that due to a break in service during the academic years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007, and the implementation of the Defined Contributory Pension (DCP) Scheme in 2005, the Petitioner could not claim benefits under the old pension scheme.
The High Court noted that the Petitioner’s appointments as a part-time teacher were duly approved by the education authorities, except for the years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007, where there was no documented approval. However, the Respondents admitted that the Petitioner had worked on the same post until he was appointed as a full-time teacher in 2007.
The Court referred to its earlier decision in Mukund Bapurao Dhadkar v. State of Maharashtra (2016), wherein it was held that part-time service rendered by an employee could be counted for pensionary benefits to the extent of half the service.
The Bench observed that “We may note that, in view of findings recorded herein above by holding that petitioner is entitled for part-time service to be considered for pensionary benefits, his entitlement would relegate back to the date of part-time appointment i.e. of the year 1999. Therefore, it cannot be said that due to subsequent implementation of the D.C.P. scheme the petitioner is not entitled for pensionary benefits. The said scheme is applicable to the employees who are appointed after 1.11.2005. In case of petitioner he was appointed in the year 1999, therefore, the D.C.P. scheme would not apply to him.”
Consequently, the Court held, “In light of above discussion, we allow the petition by directing the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to count half of the service rendered by the petitioner from 20.7.1999 to 1.7.2007 as a part-time junior college Teacher as qualifying service for the purpose of retirement and pensionary benefits as per the old pension scheme.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Petition.
Cause Title: Rajendra Vishwanath Moon v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate B.G. Kulkarni
Respondents: Assistant Government Pleader N.S. Rao; Advocate Kirti Satpute
