- Case
- DR. SHOBHA BHARGAVA v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THRU PRIN. SECRETARY, HIGHER AND TECHNICAL EDU. AND ORS (Bombay High Court, 27-03-2025)
- Law
- N/A, Principles of Natural Justice, Service Law.
Facts: Dr. Shobha Bhargava, a 59-year-old lecturer in Zoology, was initially appointed as a Pool Officer in 1997 and later as a lecturer in 2000. She faced artificial breaks in service due to the reserved category post requirement. The State Government condoned these breaks in 2013, deeming her in regular employment from 2000. However, in 2018, the Director of Higher Education unilaterally cancelled the condonation order without a hearing, impacting her pension benefits. The petitioner superannuated on 31.1.2019.
Procedural Posture: Dr. Bhargava filed a writ petition in the High Court of Bombay, challenging the Director of Higher Education's order dated 25.06.2018 and seeking restoration of the condonation of breaks in service, along with pension and other benefits.
Issue: 1. Whether the Director of Higher Education was justified in unilaterally cancelling the order condoning the breaks in service of the Petitioner without providing her an opportunity of being heard? 2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the benefits of the old pension scheme, considering her service from 2000, despite the artificial breaks?
Holding: The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the impugned order dated 25.6.2018 and restoring the order of condonation of breaks dated 3.4.2013. The Court held that the Petitioner is entitled to the benefits of the old pension scheme.
Reasoning: The Court emphasized the principle of 'Audi Alteram Partem', stating that an opportunity of hearing is crucial before passing any adverse order that unsettles an employee from a settled position. The Court found fault with the Director of Higher Education's unilateral decision to cancel the condonation of breaks without granting the Petitioner a hearing. The Court also noted that the artificial breaks were introduced due to the nature of the reserved category post, and the Petitioner should not be penalized for this. The court cited H.D. Singh Versus Reserve Bank of India & Others reported in (1985) 4 SCC 201 and State of Haryana & Others Versus V. Piara Singh & Others reported in AIR 1992 SC 2130. The Court directed the respondents to calculate the pensionary benefits by considering the continuous service of the Petitioner from the year 2000 and to pay the arrears with statutory interest within 75 days.
