Facts: The original petitioner, Trimbak Rangrao Kulkarni, served as an Assistant Teacher in a Zilla Parishad school for approximately 27 years (1959–1986). On July 31, 1986, he opted for voluntary retirement and immediately joined as a Headmaster in Prabhavati Vidyalaya, a grant-in-aid (pensionable) school, where he served until his final superannuation on April 30, 1996. Upon retirement, the Accountant General rejected the proposal to combine these two service periods for pension calculation, citing Rules 39 and 153 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. The state contended that since the petitioner took voluntary retirement and received additional weightage under Rule 66-A for his first stint, he was ineligible to club the subsequent service. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner deceased, and his legal heirs were brought on record.
Procedural Posture: The petitioner filed a Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) seeking to quash the government order dated March 15, 2010, which had rejected his request for combined pensionary benefits.
Issue: Whether a government servant who takes voluntary retirement from one pensionable post and subsequently joins another pensionable post without a break in service is entitled to club both service periods for the calculation of pensionary benefits under Rule 153 of the Pension Rules, 1982.
Holding: Yes, the petition was allowed. The court held that subsequent pensionable service rendered after voluntary retirement must be clubbed with past service for determining pensionary benefits.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that Rule 153 of the Pension Rules, 1982, contains a mandatory provision stating that where a new service is pensionable, it "must be combined" with the service previously rendered. The court rejected the State's argument that Rule 153 only applies to administrative exigencies like the closure of institutions, noting that the rule carves out no such limitation. Furthermore, the court found that Rules 66 and 66-A (governing voluntary retirement) and Rule 153 operate in distinct fields and must be construed harmoniously. Relying on the Supreme Court's precedent in "Madhukar vs. State of Maharashtra", the court concluded that the petitioner was seeking a single consolidated pension, not a "double benefit", and therefore the refusal by the authorities was legally unsustainable.