Dismissed

Gopalkrishna Shrinivas Kulkarni v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Mar 2015WP/1775/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a former part-time teacher promoted to full time, sought retirement and pension benefits from his initial part-time appointment date. The Court held that part-time service is not pensionable and dismissed the petition relying on a Full Bench precedent.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner sought direction to pay pension from 21.7.1980; request denied as part-time service is not pensionable.

Gopalkrishna Shrinivas Kulkarni Vs the State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

bsb 1

¶2

WP1775.06Jt..doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1775 OF 2006

¶5

Shri Gopalkrishna Shrinivas Kulkarni At 6A, Sahyadri Society, Near Vikas Nagar, Solapur – 413 003. … Petitioner

¶6

v/s

¶7

The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, School Education & Employment Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶8

The Dy. Director of Education, Pune Division, Pune.

¶9

The Principal, Sangameshwar College (Junior), Solapur. … Respondents

¶10

Mr.S.G. Kudle for the petitioner.

¶11

Ms.S.S. Bhende, A.G.P. for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶12

CORAM: MRS. VASANTI A. NAIK & MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.

¶13

DATED : 9TH MARCH, 2015

¶14

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Mridula Bhatkar, J.):

¶15

Heard.

¶16

In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction from this Court by way of a writ of mandamus that the respondents be

¶17

WP1775.06Jt..doc

¶18

bsb 2

¶19

directed to pay the pensionary and retirement benefit from 21^st July, 1980, the date on which he was appointed as a parttime Teacher in the college. The petitioner joined services on 21^st July, 1980 and worked as a parttime Teacher till 21^st July, 1987. In 1987, he was taken as a fulltime Teacher and he was superannuated on 31^st August, 2005 after completing his service of 25 years and one month, in Sangameshwar Junior College. The respondents held him eligible for the pensionary and retirement benefit from the date when he was made full time Teacher i.e. from 21^st July, 1987.

¶20

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has worked in two spans in different colleges at the relevant period as a parttime Teacher. He relied on Government Resolution dated 7^th June, 1980 wherein, according to him, the Government has considered parttime service rendered by the Teacher to be counted for the purposes of continuity of service as the period of his parttime service i.e. from 1980 to 1987 is also to be considered as continuous service, then he is entitled to get the retirement and the pensionary benefit from the date when he was appointed.

¶21

The contention of the petitioner is denied by the learned Assistant Government Pleader. She relied on the affidavit in reply filed by the Accounts Officer from the office of the Deputy Director of Education, Pune. It was submitted that clause (v) of the said Government Resolution is applicable to the Teacher who has

¶22

WP1775.06Jt..doc

¶23

bsb 3

¶24

rendered his parttime service if in two spans in junior college, then, those two spans are to be counted for the purpose of continuity of service only.

¶25

Admittedly, the petitioner has worked as a parttime Teacher for initial seven years. A question before us is, whether the part time service is a pensionable service or not. This issue is not res integra. The Full Bench in Banke Rai Ambika Rai Sharma vs. State of Maharashtra , 2006 (6) Mh.L.J. 873 has held that pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer. But it is governed by the Rules. While dealing with the Bombay University Act and the Government Resolution dated 21.7.1983, the Court has taken a view that part time service under the said resolution is not pensionable. Though the resolution and the scheme which were under consideration before the Full Bench were different, the principle laid down in the said judgment has to be kept on the background while interpreting the Government Resolution which is relied in the present case. Clause (v) of the Government Resolution, which is relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, reads as follows :

¶26

“(v) The parttime service, if any, during the two spans of services as Junior College teachers, should be counted for the purposes of continuity of service only.” (emphasis placed).

¶27

bsb 4

¶28

WP1775.06Jt..doc

¶29

On plain reading of clause (v), it appears that the clause gives protection to a Teacher who has rendered a parttime service in two spells in junior college and if at all the Teacher is given a technical break in between these two spans, then for the purpose of continuity of service only, clause (v) comes to the help of such Teacher. No petitioner is made full time lecturer by virtue of this clause. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not produced any other material or any other provision of law to substantiate his submission that a parttime service in a college is pensionable. Though qualification of part time lecturer is akin as compared to full time lecturer, there is no bar for part time lecturer to take another part time job. Right of person is always subject to the rules. The pensionary benefits are given to a full time Professor who gives his time or who is retained by the college as a full time Teacher. However, when the petitioner has worked only for part time and there is no other rule or any provision of law is produced before us to accept the contention that parttime service is pensionable, hence we are unable to accede to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶30

Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶31

(MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) ( VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)

Gopalkrishna Shrinivas Kulkarni v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopalkrishna Shrinivas Kulkarni v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Miss. Sarika Baburao Hatkar Vs Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee No. 2, Kolhapur and Ors.

Miss. Sarika Baburao Hatkar Vs Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee No. 2, Kolhapur and Ors.

Sou. Aparna Vinodkumar Kamble and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary and Ors.

Sukeshini Pratap Bhopte Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Ors.

Gopalkrishna Shrinivas Kulkarni Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.