Aided-post appointments before 1 November 2005 attract the Old Pension Scheme.

The Petitioner was appointed to a sanctioned post in a fully aided school in 1990, became permanent in 1991, and was admitted to the pension scheme and allotted a General Provident Fund account in 1993. She later joined another aided school and, in 2000, became Headmistress of a then-unaided school; there was no break in her service. That school subsequently received grant-in-aid, and she retired on 31 July 2025.

The Education Inspector rejected her pension proposal, reasoning that she had served in aided schools only until 2000 and that her final school received full grant-in-aid only in 2009. The Petitioner challenged that order and sought release of her pension.

Whether the Petitioner, first appointed to an aided post before 1 November 2005 and admitted to the pension scheme, was governed by the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 rather than the Defined Contribution Pension Scheme.

Whether her service at the final school before it received grant-in-aid could be counted as qualifying service for pension.

The Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, including Rule 2(2), and the Government Resolution dated 31 October 2005 were applied on the basis that the Defined Contribution Pension Scheme applies to employees recruited on or after 1 November 2005.

The Court relied on Renuka Chandrabhan Umredkar v. State of Maharashtra and Dadasaheb Sada Kadam v. State of Maharashtra for the principle that an employee’s initial appointment to an aided post, rather than a later appointment, is relevant to pension-scheme eligibility.

It also applied the Full Bench decision in Deshmukh Dilipkumar Bhagwan v. State of Maharashtra, which recognises that service rendered in a school before it received grant may count as qualifying service when the employee retires from a grant-aided school, and Anuradha Jayant Gangakhedkar v. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation on counting pre-grant service.

The Court further relied on Dadasaheb Sada Kadam’s consideration of the relevant policy decision and grant-related service.

The Petitioner was recruited in 1990—well before the DCPS cut-off—and had been admitted to the pension scheme and GPF in 1993; the State did not contend that this admission had been revoked or that she had opted for DCPS.

The Court therefore held that her later appointments did not displace her pension-scheme status arising from her initial aided appointment. Because she retired from a school receiving full grant-in-aid, the Court also held that her service at that school before it obtained grant could be counted as qualifying service, applying the Full Bench’s reasoning and the subsequent decisions discussed in the judgment.

It quashed the Education Inspector’s order, directed Respondents 6 and 7 to resubmit the pension proposal within two weeks, and directed Respondents 4 and 5 to process and sanction the pension within four weeks thereafter. The petition was allowed, with no order as to costs.