- Case
- ASHOK KAKASAHEB CHAUGULE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND ORS (Bombay High Court, 27-03-2025)
- Law
- N/A.
Facts: The petitioner, Ashok Kakasaheb Chaugule, worked as a part-time Assistant Teacher with Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 from August 27, 1986, to February 28, 2007, and with Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 from July 17, 1991, to June 15, 2007. He was appointed as a full-time teacher with Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 from June 15, 2007, and superannuated on May 31, 2018. The petitioner sought to have 50% of his part-time service from July 1991 to June 2007 added to his full-time service for pension eligibility.
Procedural Posture: The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 3368 of 2022 in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction, challenging the rejection of his pension claim. The petition was heard and decided by the court.
Issue: Whether the part-time service of the petitioner as an Assistant Teacher with Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 can be added to the extent of 50% to his full-time tenure for the purpose of determining pension eligibility, and whether the petitioner is entitled to the Old Pension Scheme.
Holding: The High Court held that the petitioner's part-time service should be considered to the extent of 50% for pension eligibility and that the petitioner is entitled to the Old Pension Scheme. The impugned communication refusing pension was quashed.
Reasoning: The Court relied on previous judgments, including Jyoti Prakash Chougule vs. State of Maharashtra, Shalini w/o Asaram Akkarbote vs. The State of Maharashtra, Anagha Ashok Bhombe vs. State of Maharashtra, and Smt. Darshana wd/o Adikrao Gaikwad vs. State of Maharashtra, which established that part-time service could be added to the extent of 50% to the full-time tenure for calculating qualified service for pension. The Court also considered the Government Resolution dated October 31, 2005, which stipulated that employees appointed to fully aided establishments before November 1, 2005, are eligible for the Old Pension Scheme. The Court concluded that the petitioner, having been appointed before this date, was entitled to the Old Pension Scheme and directed the respondent to approve the pension accordingly.
