Bombay HC Orders Pension And Gratuity For Untrained Teacher After 32 Years’ Service, Counting Employment From July 19, 1973

The petitioner worked as a teacher from 19 July 1973, including service at aided institutions, and joined the respondent college as a permanent junior lecturer on 1 July 1980.

He retired on 31 January 2005 after approximately 32 years and 6 months of service.

His pension application was rejected on the ground that he lacked the prescribed teacher-training qualification.

A subsequent representation to the Pension Adalat was also rejected under Rule 6 of the Pension Scheme framed by Government Circular dated 4 November 1968.

The petitioner challenged both rejection letters and sought pension and gratuity calculated from 19 July 1973.

The State opposed the petition, contending that the petitioner was not eligible because he had not completed a recognised training qualification.

The Court applied Rule 6 of the Pension Scheme under the Government Circular dated 4 November 1968, which the State relied on to contend that teachers without the prescribed training qualification were ineligible for pension.

It relied on K. V. Krishnan v. RGE, State of Maharashtra, which held that a teacher confirmed against a sanctioned post and recognised during service could not, after retirement, be denied pension and gratuity solely on the ground that the teacher was untrained.

It also relied on Smt. Umabai w/o Ramkrishna Deshmukh v. State of Maharashtra, Smt. Gokula Vilas Patil v. Education Officer (Primary), Sangli, and Asaram Yesuji Ghogare v. State of Maharashtra.

In Asaram Yesuji Ghogare, the Court noted the State’s decision to treat certain untrained teachers appointed before 1 July 1992 as deemed trained, and to grant pensionary benefits as a special case to similarly situated untrained teachers appointed after that date who had completed lengthy service and superannuated.

The Court rejected the State’s reliance on the petitioner’s lack of a training qualification, finding that its argument was inconsistent with the principles in the cited decisions, particularly Asaram Yesuji Ghogare.

In light of those authorities and the petitioner’s 32 years and 6 months of service, the Court held that he was entitled to pensionary benefits.

It directed that his pension and gratuity be computed using 19 July 1973 as the starting date of his continuous employment.

Rule was made absolute in those terms; there was no order as to costs.