Bombay High Court
Sunanda Sahatragun Ingale vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 7 April, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:17206-DB
10036.10wp.odt
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.10036 OF 2010
Sunanda Sahatragun Ingale,
Age: 49 years, Occu: Housewife,
R/o Khiroda, Tq. Raver,
Dist. Jalgaon ....PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra Secretary,
School Education, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32
2. The Deputy Director of Education,
Nashik Region, Nashik
3. The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon
4. Dhanaji Nana Vidhyalaya and
Madhyamik Vidhyalaya, Khiroda,
Ta. Raver, Dist. Jalgaon,
Through its Head Master ....RESPONDENTS
.....
Ms Surekha P. Mahajan, Advocate for Petitioner
Ms R. P. Gour, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3/State
Mr S. B. Yawalkar a/w Mr V. P. Raje, Advocates for Respondent No.4
.....
CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT
AND
SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, JJ.
DATE : 07th APRIL 2026
JUDGMENT (PER : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.)
1. Heard learned Advocate Ms Mahajan for the petitioner, learned AGP Ms Gour for Respondent Nos.1 to 3/State Authorities and 10036.10wp.odt (2) Mr Yawalkar alongwith Mr Raje, learned Advocates for Respondent No.4/School.
2. By an order dated 24/04/2012, this Court had granted Rule in this matter.
3. The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief under prayer clause (C-1) :
"C-1) By issuing writ of mandamus or order or direction or any other writ of like nature, the Respondents may kindly be directed to grant the family pension to the petitioner thereby considering the part time service of the deceased from 4/8/1975 to 1/4/2006 which comes to 15 years and 6 months and full time service as librarian from 1/4/2006 till 2011 the date of retirement which comes to 5 years i.e. total 20 years 6 months as qualifying service of the deceased forthwith."
4. In view of the aforesaid prayer, it came to be submitted that the petitioner is widow of deceased Shatrugan Nathu Ingale, who died on 07/06/2010 due to unnatural death (accident). Deceased Shatrugan was appointed as Librarian (Part Time) on 04/08/1975 in Respondent no. 4 School. Thereafter, on 14/11/1977, he received approval as a Part Time Librarian w.e.f. 1976-77 in the pay-scale of 67.50 with requisite allowances. On 09/01/2007, respondent No.3/Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon granted approval to the appointment of husband of the petitioner on the post of Full Time Librarian. Husband of the petitioner died on 07/06/2010 in 10036.10wp.odt (3) an accident. He was scheduled to reach the age of superannuation in 2011. According to the petitioner, though her husband did not have certificate in library training, but he was possessing Diploma in Library Science, and thus, was entitled for initial pay fixation in graduate scale. According to petitioner, Part Time Librarian post was never existed before 1994 and it came into existence as per the report of 'Chiplunkar Samiti'. As per Chiplunkar Samiti's report, the post of Part time Librarian was created in the school having strength of student between 501-1000 and the post of Full Time Librarian was created in the school having strength of student between 1001-1500. It is contended that the strength of the students in respondent No.4/school was more than 1000 students. Thus, according to her, as her husband was possessing the diploma in Library Science, he was entitled for the pay scale of Full Time Librarian from his date of appointment, however, he received the pay scale of Part Time Librarian till 2006 and is entitled to for arrears of said period. The petitioner, therefore, submits that her husband is entitled for the Full Time Librarian status from the year 1976 instead of 2006 as per the Chiplunkar Samiti Report. Therefore, as the husband of the petitioner has completed 33 years of service, which is qualified service for grant of pension as per the Rules, she is entitled for family pension considering her husband, being regular Full Time Librarian having served 33 years service.
10036.10wp.odt (4)
5. Ms Mahajan, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that, in view of the various judgments delivered by this Court, once a Part Time Librarian becomes Full Time Librarian, the employee qualifies for a pension by taking into account his total tenure including his period of Part Time employment. She further submits that since the husband of the petitioner was Part Time Librarian for a period of 31 years, 15 years and 6 months be considered as his Full Time service from the year 1975 to 2006, and thereafter, having served for the 4 years as a Full Time Librarian, the total Full Time Service of the husband of the petitioner be considered as 20 years and 6 months, and therefore, the said period is qualified for getting pension and pensionary benefits, and hence, the petitioner is entitled for the family pension and other pensionary benefits. In other words, 50% of part- time service is required to be reckoned along with full-time service for determining qualifying service for pension. Accordingly, she submits that, out of 31 years of part-time service, 15 years and 6 months is required to be considered, which, along with 4 years of full-time service, makes the petitioner eligible for pensionary benefits.
6. In support of her aforesaid submissions, learned Advocate for the petitioner relies on the following judgments delivered by this Court :-
10036.10wp.odt (5) (I) Shri Anil Dhondiram Kore Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others (Writ Petition No.396/2021) dated 23/12/2025;
(II) Vijaya Rajgonda Patil @ Vijaykumar Kole Vs. The State of Maharashtra, thr. Secretary, School Education Department & others (Writ Petition No.11721/2023) dated 11/11/2025;
(III) Babaso Ganpatil Awate Vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors. (Writ Petition No.3796/2021) dated 09/10/2024;
(IV) Savita Bhikaji Barmukh Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors.
(Writ Petition No.14899/2022) dated 06/12/2023; (V) Smt. Darshana wd/o Adikrao Gaikwad Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. (Writ Petition No.5421/2017) dated 09/07/2018; and (VI) Anita Bhagawat Narkhede alias Anita Avinash Kolhe Vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors. (Writ Petition No.13031/2023).
7. A bare perusal of the aforesaid decisions clearly disclose that 50% of the Part Time service rendered by employee is required to be counted for the purpose of determining pensionable service alongwith Full Time service rendered by the employees. The said view is being consistently followed by this Court. The Principal Seat of this Court in judgment dated 11/03/2020 in Writ Petition No.3719/2019 (Smt. Prema Narsinha Herkal Vs. State of Maharashtra and others) has observed in paragraph Nos.2, 3 and 4 as under :-
10036.10wp.odt (6) "2. The Petitioner was appointed as part time librarian in the private aided school on 21st September 1990. She was made full time librarian with effect from 6th November 2006. The Petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 31st May 2016. The service rendered by the Petitioner on full time basis from 6th November 2006 has been taken into consideration for the purpose of pension. However, the earlier service rendered by her on part time basis has not been counted. The reliance is placed on Rule 57, Note-1 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. It is further urged that the Petitioner is governed by the pension scheme prevailing prior to 31st October 2015.
3. The controversy involved in the present case is covered by the decision dated 9th July 2018 given by this Court in Writ Petition No.5421 of 2017 (Nagpur Bench), which takes into consideration the earlier decisions also (consistent view taken by this Court). The decision holds that the Petitioner therein is entitled to claim 50% of the part time services rendered by the employee for the purpose of pension and date of appointment as part time librarian has to be taken into consideration for the purpose of pension. Paragraph 4 of the said decision is relevant and it is reproduced below:
"4. We have gone through Government Resolution dated 31-10- 2005 and we do not find that Clause 4(b) therein makes any distinction between the Part Time and Full Time employees. It states that the decision contained in the said Government Resolution shall mutatis-mutandis apply to the employees who are recruited on or before 1-11-2005, to whom the existing Pension Scheme or General Provident Fund Scheme would be applicable. Undisputedly, the husband of the Petitioner was recruited on 1-7-1998 as a Part Time Librarian and we find that the stand of the Respondents is that Clause 4(b) contains the recruitment as a Full Time employee as on 1-11-2005, is artificial and it is not borne out from the said Government Resolution."
4. The stand taken by the Respondents in their affidavit is that the date of appointment as full time librarian can only be considered, as it is a fresh appointment. This contention has already been rejected. We are also unable to accept this plea 10036.10wp.odt (7) that the appointment as full time librarian is a fresh appointment. The services of the Petitioner has to be counted from the first date of appointment and therefore the pension scheme prevailing prior to 1st November 2005 would be applicable to the Petitioner. In the result, writ petition is allowed and the order is passed as under :
-: O R D E R :-
1] The order dated 11th July 2018 passed by Respondent No.2 refusing to grant pension and other benefits to the Petitioner is hereby quashed and set aside.
2] The 50% of services rendered by the Petitioner as part time librarian from 21st September 1990 till 6th November 2006 shall be taken into consideration while computing the pensionable service rendered by the Petitioner.
3] The Petitioner shall be entitled to benefit of pension scheme prevailing prior to 1st November 2005.
4] All this exercise shall be carried out within the period of four months from today."
8. Relying on the aforesaid judgment, learned Circuit Bench of this Court at Kolhapur, vide its recent order dated 23/12/2025 in Writ Petition No.396/2021 (supra) has considered the identical situation and allowed the writ petition, by directing the authorities to submit the pension proposal of the petitioner therein as per the old pension scheme by calculating the pension considering the 50% Part Time service rendered by the petitioner therein.
9. Per contra, learned AGP for the State authorities and learned Advocate for respondent No.4/school vehemently opposed the petition. Learned AGP places reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Sunil Subhash Ekhande Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 10036.10wp.odt (8) reported in AIR Online 2023 Bom. 1633, wherein this Court dismissed the identical writ petition by placing reliance upon the judgment delivered in Satish Ganpatrao Patil and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR Online 2015 Bom. 104. In the said judgment, there was challenge to the Government Resolution dated 03/08/2006 on the ground that the same is illegal and contrary to the report of the Chiplunkar Samiti. The petitioners therein had sought relief that they be considered as Full Time Librarian from the day of their initial appointments as Part Time Librarian. Thus, learned AGP prays for dismissal of this writ petition.
10. After hearing learned Advocates for the respective parties, we have gone through the record available with the Court. We find that the petitioner relying on Rule 30, Rule 57 Note 1 and Rule 110 of Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules prays for considering 50% of the Part Time service for calculating the pension which was not the subject matter in Sunil Subhash Ekhande (supra) and Satish Ganpatrao Patil (supra) aforesaid judgments. Claiming Full Time Librarian status from first day of part time service and claiming 50% service of part time service as full time service are two different issues. Thus, the husband of Petitioner had rendered 31 years of service as a Part Time Librarian and 4 years of Full Time Librarian till his unnatural death, can be said to be legally justified for the entitlement of the regular 10036.10wp.odt (9) pensionary benefits. In that view of the matter, it is also equally important to place reliance on the following judgments:
(I) Shivappa Bhujangappa Bembale Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2005(3) Mh.L.J. 709;
(II) Anil Popat Chobhe Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2022) SCC Online Bom. 1726; and (III) Pratibha Prakash Almast and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2023) SCC Online Bom. 1262.
11. In Writ Petition No.12902 Of 2018 (Punjahari Baburao Dighe And Others Vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others), on 6 May, 2022, Aurangabad Bench, observed as under:-
"40. The learned Additional Government Pleader placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan Public Service Commission with State of Rajasthan Vs. Harish Kumar Purohit and Kishanlal Banshal (supra) and more particularly para No. 18 and would submit that if this Court is of the view that the judgment delivered by the co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Satish Ganpatrao Patil and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others (supra) is not correct view, the matter has to be referred to the larger bench for resolving the conflict.
REASONS AND CONCLUSIONS
41. It is not in dispute that some time prior to 1994 the State Government had constituted Shri. V. V. Chiplunkar Committee for recommending staffing pattern of non teaching employees for the schools, high schools and junior colleges based upon the strength of the students. The staffing pattern prescribed in the Secondary School Code was found to be inappropriate and efficiency of the administration was adversely affected. Shri. V.V. Chiplunkar Committee submitted its report to the State Government. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the report of Shri. V.V. Chiplunkar Committee, the State Government issued Government Resolution dated 28th June 1994. In the said report, insofar as the post of part time librarian and full time librarian is concerned, considering the 10036.10wp.odt (10) number of students in each school, post of such part time librarian and full time librarian were recommended.
42. In view of the said Government Resolution dated 28th June 1994, the staffing pattern of non teaching employees in the school was governed by the provisions of the Secondary School Code. Clause 4 of the said Government Resolution dated 28 th June 1994 clearly provided that for filling up the posts of non teaching staff in the secondary school, it should be presumed that the existing norms prescribed in the Secondary School Code were changed accordingly. The Director of Education, Maharashtra State, Pune should submit a draft of necessary amendment to Secondary School Code to the Government. New norms prescribed in the Secondary School Code were accordingly changed. The Education Officer (Secondary) of each district was directed to evaluate strength of each school and submit the report as to in which school the post of full time librarian would become available and from which year the post of full time librarian was required to be approved.
43. The State Government issued Government Resolution dated 03rd August, 2006, by relying upon the Government Resolution dated 28th June, 1994. It was clearly provided in the said Government Resolution that the Government had already granted approval for creation of 284 posts of full time librarian in the Government Resolution dated 28.06.1994. The State Government up-graded posts of part time librarian of 924 schools to full time librarians contending that it would be a fresh appointment as full time librarian and accordingly the period of services rendered by part time librarian would not be counted for pay fixation and that the appointment would be on the lowest scale as basic as full time librarian with effect from 01st April, 2006. A perusal of the said Government Resolution dated 28th June 1994 would indicate that based on the report submitted by Shri. V.V. Chiplunkar Committee, the posts of part time librarian and full time librarian were prescribed in the said Government Resolution.
44. Nagpur Bench of this Court delivered a judgment on 22nd July 2005 in Writ Petition No. 1197/2005 filed by one of the part time librarian pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in the said matter. The Education Officer in that case passed order dated 12th September 2009, granting approval to the said petitioner as full time librarian with effect from 1st July 1994 on the basis that the strength of the students in the concerned school had become more than 1000 from the year 1994-95.
45. Large number of such employees who were initially appointed as part time librarian and were subsequently appointed as full time librarian were not granted the pension under the MCS (Pension) Rules, 1982, by computing 50% of their service as part time librarian alongwith their 100% of service as full time librarian. Nagpur Bench of this Court in the said judgment had considered the fact that the petitioner was working as librarian on part time basis on 7th December 1992 and at that time the total strength of the students of the school was less than 1000 and in or about the year 1999 the strength of the students had exceed to 1000. After considering the Government Resolution dated 28th June 1994 and after considering the effect of Shri V.V. Chiplunkar Committee Report, this Court directed the petitioner therein to make fresh application to the respondent 10036.10wp.odt (11) No.2 to make enquiry and pass appropriate order. The respondent No. 2 had thereafter granted approval to the appointment of the petitioner as full time librarian with effect from the date of the strength of the students in the school exceeding to 1000.
56. Insofar as the judgment of this Court in the case of Satish Ganpatrao Patil (supra) relied upon by the learned Additional Government Pleader is concerned, a perusal of the prayers made in the said writ petition with the judgment would clearly indicate that the Division Bench of this Court was considering alterate prayer for quashing and setting aside the word 'fresh' in the impugned Government Resolution dated 3rd August 2006 by substituting or deleting the same and held that the petitioners therein were promoted from part time librarians to full time librarians. In that context, this Court held that the petitioners had accepted the benefits of the said Government Resolution dated 3rd August 2006 and had accepted without any protest. Large number of judgments delivered by this Court taking different view prior to the said judgment in case of Satish Ganpatrao Patil (supra) were not brought to the notice of this Court. Be that as it may, the facts in the case of Satish Ganpatrao Patil (supra) were totally different and are distinguishable on facts. The said judgment is already distinguished by Division Bench of this Court recently in case of Ganesh Narhar Chavan (supra) and would not advance case of the respondents.
We are thus not required to refer the issue to Larger Bench.
57. In our view, the State Government while issuing Government Resolution dated 3rd August 2006 could not have been taken away the benefits granted under the Government Resolution dated 28th June 1994 which were granted pursuant to the acceptance of Shri V. V. Chiplunkar Committee Report. The said Government Resolution dated 3rd August 2006 could not have been issued inconsistent with the provisions of Secondary School Code. In our view, by the said Government Resolution dated 28 th June 1994 there was only up-gradation of approved part time posts of part time librarians to the post of full time librarians and such up- gradation was automatic once the strength of students had become 1000 or above. The respondents were thus obliged to grant status of full time librarian to the petitioners on the date of strength of the students had become 1000 or more WP No.12902/18 & Ors. alongwith all consequential benefits, pay fixation from due date.
59. The respondents are required to compute 50% of the services rendered as part time librarian along with period of 100% service rendered as full time librarian for computing pensionable service.
60. There is no substance in the submission of the State Government that there would be any discrimination between the part time librarian given status of full time librarian on the date of the strength of the students having reached 1000 or more and the full time librarian appointed after D. C. P. S. scheme came into force. The said Government Resolution dated 03.08.2006 taking away the rights vested in employees under G. R. dated 28.06.1994 is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The judgments relied upon by the learned Additional Government Pleader are distinguishable on facts and would not assist the case of the State Government.
10036.10wp.odt (12)
12. In the case in hand, the husband of petitioner has admittedly served as Librarian (Part Time) on 04/08/1975 to 09/01/2007 in Respondent no. 4/School. Thereafter, he was granted approval as Full Time Librarian from 09/01/2007.
13. In view of the settled legal position consistently laid down by this Court, it is no longer res integra that 50% of the service rendered as a Part Time Librarian is liable to be reckoned for the purpose of computing qualifying service for pension, along with the entire service rendered as a full time employee. The distinction sought to be drawn by the respondents between part-time and full-time service, to the extent of denying pensionary benefits, has been repeatedly rejected. In the present case, the husband of the petitioner had rendered long years of service, first as a part-time Librarian and thereafter as a full-time Librarian, and therefore, the petitioner, being his widow, cannot be deprived of family pension. Denial of such benefit would defeat the very object of social security underlying the pension scheme. Therefore, we are of the view that the petitioner is entitled for family pension as per the relief sought by her vide prayer clause (C-1.). Accordingly, we pass the following order :-
ORDER (1) The writ petition is allowed.
10036.10wp.odt (13) (2) It is held that 50% of the service rendered by the husband of the petitioner as Part-Time Librarian shall be taken into account along with the entire service rendered as Full-Time Librarian for the purpose of computing qualifying service for pensionary benefits.
(3) Considering above, Respondent No.4/School shall submit a proposal of family pension to respondent No.2 & 3, within a period of four weeks from the date of uploading of this order. (4) Respondent Nos.2 & 3 shall submit proposal to the concerned competent Department for grant of family pension to the petitioner as per old pension scheme, within a period of four weeks from receipt of such proposal from respondent No.4/ School.
(5) The concerned competent Department shall determine the entitlement of the petitioner for pensionary benefits by taking into account 50% of the Part Time service alongwith entire Full Time service rendered by husband of the petitioner for granting family pensionary benefits, in accordance with law, and release the arrears and regular family pension under old pension scheme within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of such proposal from respondent No.2 and 3. (6) Rule is made absolute in above terms.
[SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.] [KISHORE C. SANT, J.] sjk