Bombay High Court
Mahajan Charushila Sitaram vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 6 May, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:20525-DB
*1* wp14716o17 ptlibrarian
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.14716 OF 2017
Mahajan Charushila Sitaram,
age 59 Years occupation Retired,
Served as Librarian in H. R. Patel,
Secondary and Higher Secondary School
Shirpur, District Dhule.
Resident of Subhash colony,
Plot no. 15, c/o S. R. Choudhary,
Shirpur, Taluka Shirpur, District Dhule.
M. No. 7588100303.
Since died during pendency of petition,
her legal heirs are brought on record
as under:-
1) Atul Sitaram Mahajan.
age 41 Years
occupation Private Service,
resident of Gol-Green Vally,
Kanadiya Road, Indore.
2) Manisha Kailash Patil (Daughter)
age 52 Years occupation Household
resident of as above.
3) Smita Deepak Patil (Daughter)
age 48 Years occupation Household
resident of Bharuch, Gujrat.
4) Nita Dipen Marvania (Daughter)
age 43 Years occupation Household
resident of Near Post, Taloja,
Bhavnagar, Gujrat.
... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra
*2* wp14716o17 ptlibrarian
through Secretary,..
Education Department
Mantralaya Mumbai-400 032.
2) The Director of Education,
M. S. Pune.
3) The Deputy Director of Education,
Nasik Division Nasik.
4) The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad Dhule.
5) The Accountant General,
Indian Audit and Accounts Department,
Office of the Accountant General,
Accounts and Entitlement-I,
Pratishtha Bhavan, Old CGO Building,
181, Maharishi Karve marg,
2nd floor, Mumbai-400 020.
Maharashtra.
6) The Principal, H. R. Patel,
Secondary and Higher Secondary
School Shirpur, District Dhule.
... RESPONDENTS
...
Ms. A.N. Ansari, advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Kirankumar B. Jadhavar, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 5/
State.
...
CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT
&
SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, JJ.
Reserved on : 10 April 2026
Pronounced on : 06 May 2026
*3* wp14716o17 ptlibrarian
ORDER (Per Sushil M. Ghodeswar, J.) :-
1. The original petitioner (Charushila Sitaram Mahajan) passed away during pendency of this petition, therefore, her legal heirs are brought on record.
2. The petitioners, who are legal heirs of the original petitioner, are restricting their prayer to the extent of prayer clause C i.e. "The petitioner may be granted the status of the full time librarian from the year 2000-2001, by issuing any appropriate writ order or direction as the case may be."
3. According to the petitioners, the deceased petitioner was appointed as Part Time Librarian vide order dated 09.06.1997 and vide order dated 04.02.1999, her appointment was approved by the Education Department. In academic year 2000-01, strength of students was 1138 in the college where the deceased petitioner was appointed. Though the strength of students was increased above 1000, however, she was not given status of Full Time Librarian till 01.04.2006. According to the petitioners, in view of Government Resolution dated 03.08.2006, the deceased petitioner was given status of Full Time Librarian *4* wp14716o17 ptlibrarian w.e.f. 01.04.2006. She continued in services till her age of superannuation i.e. 31.07.2016.
4. It is the case of the petitioners that after retirement, her pension proposal was forwarded to respondent No.5. Since she was granted the status of Full Time Librarian w.e.f. 01.04.2006, her pension proposal was returned vide letter dated 15.06.2016 on the ground that she was granted status of Full Time Librarian w.e.f. 01.04.2006, therefore, she is not entitled for pension as she had not completed qualifying service. By another letter dated 23.08.2017, it was informed that part time services rendered by the deceased petitioner from 13.06.1997 to 31.03.2006 cannot be counted for pensionary benefits. Therefore, in this petition, the petitioners are restricting their relief for considering part time services as full time service for the purpose of pensionary benefits.
5. The learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that as per the Chiplunkar Committee report and the Government Resolution dated 28.06.1996, it is prescribed that if the strength of students is more than 1000, then part time librarian would be entitled for status of full time librarian from the date of appointment. According to the learned advocate, in this case, the *5* wp14716o17 ptlibrarian deceased petitioner was appointed vide order dated 06.06.1997 as part time librarian and the strength of students was increased upto 1138 in academic year 2000-2001.
6. In support of above submissions, the learned advocate has relied upon several judgments delivered on this issue including the judgments in Writ Petition No.14935/2017 (Ganesh Narhar Chavan and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others) decided on 11.03.2022, Writ Petition No.2732/2013 (Sayed Khaled vs. State of Maharashtra and others ) decided on 01.04.2015 and Writ Petition No.2074/2020 (Raju Kishanrao Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and others) decided on 01.10.2022.
7. On the other hand, the learned AGP has strongly opposed the instant petition. It is submitted that the deceased petitioner having attained the status of Full Time Librarian from 01.04.2006, she is not entitled for pension as per old pension scheme. The learned AGP has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Sunil Subhash Ekhande vs. State of Maharashtra and others, Writ Petition No.11525/2018 decided on 01.08.2023, wherein, this Court has observed that such librarians who have *6* wp14716o17 ptlibrarian attained the status of Full Time Librarian, are not entitled for pension as per the old pension scheme. As such, the learned AGP prayed for dismissal of the petition.
8. After considering the submissions of the parties and after going through the judgments cited by the parties, this Court finds that the issue raised in this petition is already decided by this Court in several judgments. Recently, this Court has delivered the judgment on 07.04.2026 in Writ Petition No.10036/2010 (Sunanda Sahatragun Ingale vs. State of Maharashtra and others) wherein, this Court while allowing the petition, has discussed somewhat identical facts and granted pensionary benefits to the petitioner therein. Paragraph Nos.10 to 13 read thus:-
"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 *7* wp14716o17 ptlibrarian 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 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 *8* wp14716o17 ptlibrarian 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 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 *9* wp14716o17 ptlibrarian 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 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 *10* wp14716o17 ptlibrarian 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 *11* wp14716o17 ptlibrarian 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.
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 *12* wp14716o17 ptlibrarian 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."
9. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons recorded in Sunanda Sahatragun Ingale (supra), this Writ Petition is allowed as under:-
(a) It is held that 50% of the service rendered by the deceased 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.
(b) Respondent No.6/college shall submit the proposal of family pension to respondent Nos.3 and 4, within a period of FOUR WEEKS from today.
(c) Respondent Nos.3 and 4 shall forward the said proposal to respondent No.5/ Accountant General for grant of family pension to the petitioners as per old pension scheme, within a period of FOUR WEEKS from the date of receipt of *13* wp14716o17 ptlibrarian such proposal from respondent No.6.
(d) Respondent No.5 shall determine the entitlement of the petitioners for pensionary benefits by taking into account 50% of the Part Time service alongwith entire Full Time service rendered by the deceased 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 Nos.3 and 4.
kps (SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.) (KISHORE C. SANT, J.)