Half of part-time service must be counted toward qualifying pension and gratuity service.

The Petitioner, qualified with an M.A. in Hindi and a B.Ed., was appointed as a part-time Hindi teacher by the Respondent-management from July 1998. Her appointments were approved by the Regional Deputy Director of Education on a year-to-year basis. She claimed to have concurrently rendered part-time service in two colleges administered by the same management. In June 2019, she was appointed as a full-time Assistant Teacher against a sanctioned vacancy, and that appointment was also approved.

The Petitioner superannuated on 30 September 2023. When her pension papers and gratuity were not processed, she filed Writ Petition No. 11027 of 2024. By order dated 28 March 2025, the High Court directed the Respondents to release her gratuity and process her pension papers; gratuity of ₹4,21,043 was subsequently paid.

On 24 July 2025, the Accountant General rejected her claim for pensionary and retirement-gratuity benefits, holding that she had only 4 years, 3 months and 13 days of regular service and was ineligible under Rule 111(1) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. The Petitioner challenged that communication in the present writ petition.

Whether the Accountant General was justified in applying Rule 111(1) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, to deny the Petitioner pensionary and retirement-gratuity benefits on the ground that she had not completed five years of regular service?

Whether the Petitioner’s approved part-time service was required to be taken into account, wholly or in the legally applicable proportion, while calculating her qualifying service for pension and gratuity?

Whether the Respondents were required to sanction and release the Petitioner’s pensionary benefits and any unpaid gratuity with interest?

The Court applied Rule 111(1) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, but held that it could not be mechanically invoked to disregard the Petitioner’s long period of approved service.

Under Rule 19 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Rules, the State Pension Rules apply to eligible teachers.

Relying on Darshana v. State of Maharashtra, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 21385, and the consistent line of decisions including Jyoti Prakash Chougule v. State of Maharashtra, Shalini w/o Asaram Akkarbote v. State of Maharashtra, and Sulbha Ramesh Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra, the Court reiterated that qualifying part-time service must be considered for pensionary benefits, ordinarily by counting 50% of such service along with full-time service.

The Court also referred to Rules 30 and 39 and Note 1 below Rule 51 of the Pension Rules as supporting the inclusion of part-time service in determining pensionable service.

The Court found that the Petitioner had rendered approved part-time and full-time service from 20 July 1998 until her superannuation on 30 September 2023. Although there were short breaks between certain academic years, there was continuous approved service from 2001 to 2023, and the year-to-year approvals were undisputed.

Consequently, the conclusion that she had only 4 years, 3 months and 13 days of qualifying service was factually and legally unsustainable.

The Court held that the Respondents could not exclude the Petitioner’s part-time service altogether, particularly when the governing pension framework and binding coordinate-Bench decisions required such service to be considered in calculating pensionable tenure.

The impugned communication was therefore arbitrary and contrary to the applicable legal position.

It directed Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 to sanction and release the Petitioner’s pensionary benefits and gratuity, after taking her part-time service into account while calculating her qualifying service, together with interest, within four weeks of receiving the order.

The Respondents were further directed to decide the Petitioner’s representation regarding unpaid gratuity within four weeks and to issue any deficiency memo before deciding it.

Rule was made absolute, with no order as to costs.