Bombay High Court
Nagorao Rangrao Kalyankar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 13 November, 2019
Author: Sunil P. Deshmukh
Bench: Sunil P. Deshmukh, Vibha Kankanwadi
1 WP / 229 / 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 229 OF 2017
Nagorao s/o Rangrao Kalyankar
Age: 62 years, Occu : Retired Employee,
R/o : Bhosi, Tq. Bhokar,
Dist. Nanded ...PETITIONER
VERSUS
1] The State of Maharashtra
Through its Principal Secretary,
Rural Development Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
2] The Principal Secretary
School Education Department
Officer (Primaryt
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
3] The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Nanded
4] The Education Officer (Primaryt
Zilla Parishad, Nanded ...RESPONDENTS
...
Mr. Salgare Vitthal G., Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. P. N. Kutti, Assistant Government Pleader for respondents no. 1
and 2
Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar, Advocate for respondents no. 3 and 4
...
CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH &
SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, JJ.
DATE : 13-11-2019
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER - SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.t :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of learned counsel for parties, petition is heard fnally.
::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2020 21:16:53 :::2 WP / 229 / 2017
2. The petitioner had been appointed as a primary teacher in 1971 with educational qualifcation S.S.C. Subsequently he was also issued appointment order in July, 1972. Accordingly, petitioner had joined primary school at Chidgiri, Taluka - Bhokar in Nanded district in August, 1972. Services of petitioner came to be regularized with efect from 02-08-1973 albeit without condoning the breaks intervening earlier appointments. As of now, there is no dispute that the petitioner had been a S.S.C. and had retired on superannuation on 31-10-2011. Petitioner during the course of his employment, had been receiving regular salary. Since petitioner did not possess training qualifcation viz. Diploma in Education, Diploma in Teaching etc., he was being paid in the pay scale of untrained teacher.
3. As the petitioner was not getting pensionary benefts, he had approached this court under writ petition no. 4081 of 2013 while dispute arose about petitioner holding S.S.C. qualifcation or not. This court had directed concerned authority under its order dated 04-12-2014 quashing the order passed against petitioner to examine the documents of petitioner's educational qualifcation and decide proposal of petitioner afresh on its own merits. While this was the order passed, petitioner's case was not being considered for grant of pension. Though now there is no dispute with regard to petitioner ::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2020 21:16:53 ::: 3 WP / 229 / 2017 being S.S.C., Yet, pensionary benefts are not coming petitioner's way.
4. In response, the beneft is purportedly declined having regard to government resolution dated 04-10-1983 and communication dated 09-03-2010, referring to that there is no exemption given to appointments made after 01-07-1972 from training qualifcation and petitioner not possessing P.T.C. or D.Ed.
qualifcation, him being appointed after 01-07-1972 pursuant to the government resolution and communication dated 09-03-2010, it is considered, pension would not be payable to petitioner.
5. Though Mr. Pulkundwar, learned counsel for respondents no. 3 and 4 resists, the situation appears to be squarely covered by decision of division bench of this court in the case of Smt. Umabai W/o Ramkrishna Deshmukh Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary reported in 2019 (5) ALL MR 193 has observed, thus, " 9. The Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services Rules provide that, provisions of the Pension Rule shall apply.
10. All the parties agree that the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (for short "Pension Rules") is applicable to the case in hand. It is also not disputed that at no point of time any departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioners, nor they had suffered any disability except the fact that they were untrained teachers.
12. The Pension Rules read in its entirety nowhere stipulates that if a person is appointed on substantive post by following due selection process and completes 10 years or more service till the date of his superannuation and against whom no departmental or judicial proceedings are pending is disentitle for pension on the ground that on the date the employee was appointed and retires on attaining age of superannuation was untrained.
::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2020 21:16:53 :::4 WP / 229 / 2017
13. It is not disputed by respondents that, the petitioners were duly appointed on a substantive and sanctioned posts. They have completed the minimum period of qualifying service. In fact, most of the petitioners have completed more than 30 years of service and honourably retired on attaining age of superannuation. They were treated as regular employees, were paid the regular salary, their appointments are approved as per their qualification. No rule exists in the Pension Rules that would deny the petitioners right to claim pension. The posts these petitioners were holding, were never declared to be non pensionable or that the posts created by it shall not be qualifying service for pension. In absence of any rules, denying the right to get pension to the petitioners will not be permissible.
14. The Government Resolution dated 04.10.1983 prescribing that those appointed prior to the cut off date i.e. 01.07.1972 and possessing only S.S.C. qualification would be deemed trained teachers not those appointed till the date of Government resolution is unreasonable classification as is observed by the Division Bench of this Copurt under judgment and order dated 13.12.2017 in a case of Smt. Gokula Vilas Patil v. The Education (Primary) Sangli and others referred to (supra). The Division Bench of this Court at its Principal Seat at Bombay in the said case has observed that, the cut off date for making the pensionary benefits applicable to the untrained teachers as on 01st July, 1972 cannot be said to have any nexus with the object sought to be achieved. This Court in the said judgment further observed that, it would have been a different matter, had the State Government notified the date of Government Resolution or subsequent date as a cut off date for making the pensionary benefits applicable. However, by the 1983 Government Resolution the State could not have gone backward by nine years to provide a cut off date.
15. The provisions of the Government Resolution dated 04 th October, 1983 are self eloquent. It has been observed in the said Government Resolution that these teachers have rendered laudable service and during their tenure the educational institutions have prospered and the results of such institutions are also excellent. The Division in the case of Smt. Gokula Vilas Patil v. The Education officer (Primary) Sangli and others (supra) further observed that, cut off date provided does not have any rational and one could have considered, if the cut off date provided was the date Government Resolution or the subsequent date and in clear words observed that the Government Resolution does not have any nexus with the object. The Division Bench further observed that, by the 1983 Government Resolution, the State could not have gone backward by nine years to provide a cut of date.
16. Moreover, it would appear that all these petitioners were appointed after following due selection process. Their appointments have been approved and for all purposes they were treated as regular employees on substantive posts. They have rendered their services till ::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2020 21:16:53 ::: 5 WP / 229 / 2017 the age of superannuation. Till the date of retirement these petitioners were at no point of time treated as ineligible for appointments. It is not case that petitioners have suppressed or misrepresented about their qualification. The respondents consciously allowed petitioners to render services till they retired on attaining the age of superannuation. Their service record is unblemished and are appointed after following due selection process. They have rendered their services to the satisfaction of the institution and the authorities. They were paid salaries for the funds of the States. "
6. In view of aforesaid, it appears to be expedient that respondents would give pensionary benefts to petitioner as untrained primary teacher.
7. In the circumstances, respondents would consider case of petitioner for grant of pension and pensionary benefts and would not refuse benefts to petitioner on the ground that he does not possess necessary training qualifcation. His case for pensionary benefts be considered expeditiously, preferably within a period of three (3t months from the date of receipt of writ of this order.
8. Writ petition is disposed of. Rule made absolute accordingly.
[SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] [ SUNIL P. DESHMUKH ]
JUDGE JUDGE
arp/
::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2020 21:16:53 :::