SMT. SUVARNA HARISHCHANDRA CHAVAN v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR DEPT. OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND ORS
Pension Eligibility - Service in Unaided Schools Followed by 100% Grant-in-Aid: Qualifying Service and Interest on Arrears.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:56901-DB
Decision Date: 18-12-2025
List of Laws
Old Pension Scheme; Government Resolution dated 31.10.2005; Grant-in-aid Code; Writ of Mandamus; Doctrine of Delay and Laches; Union of India and Ors. V/s. Tarsem Singh, 2008 (8) SCC 648; Deshmukh Dilipkumar Bhagwan and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2019 (3) Mh.L.J. 903
- Facts: Smt. Suvarna Harishchandra Chavan, an Art Teacher, sought pension benefits. She worked in an institution that initially received no government grants but later received 100% grants from 11.10.2002. She superannuated on 31.03.2012. The pension proposal was rejected because her service on an unaided post was not considered for calculating qualifying service.
- Procedural Posture: The petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, challenging the rejection of her pension proposal and seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider her service for pension benefits. The rule was made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.
- Issue: Whether the petitioner is eligible for pension under the Old Pension Scheme, considering her service in an institution that received 100% grants-in-aid from the government only after a certain period, and whether her earlier service on an unaided basis can be reckoned for calculating qualifying service. What is the applicable rate of interest on unpaid pensionary benefits?
- Holding: The High Court partly allowed the petition, directing the respondent to sanction the pension proposal of the petitioner under the Old Pension Scheme, considering her earlier permanent service on an unaided basis from 02.12.1998 until her superannuation on 31.03.2012. The court also granted 5% interest on the amount of unpaid pension for a period of three years preceding the date of filing the petition.
- Reasoning: The Court relied on the Full Bench decision in Deshmukh Dilipkumar Bhagwan and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., which clarified that the liability of the government to pay pensionary benefits crystallizes only if the government has undertaken to pay 100% grant to the school prior to the cut-off date. The Court also noted that service in a recognized private school during the period it was not receiving grants would count towards qualifying service for pension when the employee retires from a school receiving 100% grants. Referring to Union of India and Ors. V/s. Tarsem Singh, the court held that relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy if the service-related claim is based on a continuing wrong, and if the issue relates to payment or re-fixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted despite the delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. The court restricted the interest on unpaid pension to a period of three years preceding the filing of the writ petition, aligning with the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs.
🔒 For Members Only