Half of pre-cutoff part-time librarian service counts toward qualifying service under the Old Pension Scheme.

The petitioner was appointed on 12 June 1995 as a part-time librarian in an aided secondary school, and his appointment was approved by the Education Officer on 8 November 1995.

He was subsequently made permanent as a part-time librarian on 12 June 1998.

Pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 3 August 2006, which upgraded eligible part-time librarian posts to full-time posts, he was appointed as a full-time librarian with effect from 1 April 2006, through an appointment order dated 7 March 2007.

The State had introduced the Defined Contribution Pension Scheme (“DCPS”) by Government Resolution dated 31 October 2005 for employees recruited on or after 1 November 2005.

Since the petitioner’s full-time appointment was formally recognised from 1 April 2006, the authorities denied him the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme and treated him as covered by the DCPS.

The petitioner challenged that decision, contending that 50% of his approved part-time service prior to 1 November 2005 had to be counted towards qualifying service for pension.

He retired in November 2023.

Whether the petitioner’s approved part-time service as a librarian from 12 June 1995 to 31 March 2006 could be counted, wholly or partly, towards qualifying service for pension despite his formal appointment as a full-time librarian only from 1 April 2006?

Whether the petitioner was entitled to the Old Pension Scheme under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, rather than the DCPS introduced with effect from 1 November 2005?

Whether the “fresh appointment” stipulation in Clause 4 of the Government Resolution dated 3 August 2006 excluded the petitioner’s prior part-time service for pensionary purposes?

The Court applied Section 4 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, which authorises rules concerning post-retirement benefits of private-school employees, read with Rule 19 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, under which full-time employees of aided schools are entitled to pension in accordance with Government pension rules.

The Court relied principally on Rules 30, 31, 33, 57 and 110 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982: Rule 30 concerns commencement of qualifying service; Rule 31 prescribes when service qualifies; and Rule 57, Note 1 permits one-half of previous continuous service to be counted where an employee is subsequently brought onto a regular pensionable establishment.

The Court further relied on the Full Bench decision in Deshmukh Dilipkumar Bhagwan v. State of Maharashtra, which held that service rendered in a recognised private school before it became fully aided may count towards qualifying service when the employee retires from a fully aided school, and on decisions including Shivappa s/o Bhujangappa Bembale, Mukund s/o Bapurao Dhadkar, Renuka Chandrabhan Umredkar, Nilesh s/o Namdev Gurav, and Dilip Rana Randive, which recognised that 50% of approved part-time service followed by full-time service must be counted for pension.

The Court distinguished Sunil Subhash Ekhande v. State of Maharashtra, holding that it concerned the validity and effect of the 3 August 2006 G.R., not the separate question of counting part-time service under the pension rules.

The Court found that the petitioner had continuously served in the same aided school from 1995, that his part-time appointment was approved, and that he was subsequently absorbed into a full-time pensionable post.

Although the 3 August 2006 G.R. described the full-time appointment as a “fresh appointment” and denied advance increments for prior service, it did not expressly exclude prior service from computation of pensionable service.

Applying Rule 57, Note 1, the Court held that 50% of the petitioner’s part-time service from 12 June 1995 to 31 March 2006—approximately five years and four months—had to be added to his full-time service from 1 April 2006 onwards.

This notionally placed the commencement of his qualifying service before the 1 November 2005 cut-off date.

The petitioner therefore could not be treated as a post-cut-off recruit merely because his full-time appointment was formally recorded from 1 April 2006.

The Court also held that Sunil Subhash Ekhande did not govern the case because it did not decide the applicability of Rules 30, 57 Note 1 and 110 to pension computation.

The Court declared that 50% of the petitioner’s approved part-time service must be counted together with his entire full-time service for determining qualifying service, and consequently held that he was entitled to pension under the Old Pension Scheme.

Respondent No. 6 was directed to submit the pension proposal within three weeks, and the competent authorities were directed to process and disburse the pension.

Pension arrears were ordered to be paid within six weeks with 8% interest per annum, subject to adjustment of any amounts recoverable from the petitioner in relation to DCPS contributions.

The Court also directed payment of any other admissible retirement dues within four weeks and made the Rule absolute without costs.