If Fresh Appointment Made After Termination, Previous Service Period Cannot Be Counted For Pension Calculations: Bombay HC

Bombay High Court: A division bench consisting of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Ashwin Bhobe dismissed a writ petition that prayed for the counting of earlier service in pension calculations. The court held that any reappointment made after terminating the previous service cannot be linked to the earlier service period. The court explained that if previous service was terminated, the reappointment made after proper selection process is considered afresh for pension calculations. Background Bhavan's Somani College in Bombay appointed Dr. V.N. Madhu in 1986 as the Assistant Teacher in Biology. This appointment was made on a temporary basis against a reserved vacancy. However, his services were terminated on 20 June 1987. When he challenged this termination before the School Tribunal, the Tribunal refused to reinstate him and instead directed the college to pay one month's salary as compensation. Aggrieved, Dr. Madhu filed a writ petition and approached the Bombay High Court. While this petition was pending, the court issued on interim order that restrained Bhavan's Somani College from appointing anyone other than Dr. Madhu to the post of Assistant Teacher, unless he was absorbed by Patkar College. Following this, S.S. & L.S. Patkar-Varde College appointed him as Assistant Teacher from 1989. When the writ petition was finally disposed off in 1997, the court increased the compensation from one to six months' pay, but did not grant any reinstatement. Consequently, Dr. Madhu's appointment made as per the interim order was terminated on 10 October 1997. Nevertheless, Patkar College appointed him again as Assistant Teacher from the Open Category in 1998. When Dr. Madhu retired in 2017, he requested that his service from 1989 be counted for calculating his pension and gratuity. This request, however, was rejected by the Under Secretary, Government of Maharashtra. Challenging this rejection, Dr. Madhu filed a writ petition. Arguments Representing Dr. Madhu, Mr. Mihir Desai argued that Dr. Madhu had been working the same post from 1989, with only a break between October 1997 and March 1998. Relying on Rule 30 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (“MCSR”), he argued that since Dr. Madhu was holding a permanent post at the time of retirement, his service should be counted from the time he first took charge of the post, even if in a temporary capacity. Thus, he argued, that the break must be condoned, and the qualifying service should start from September 1989. Lastly, he cited the Bombay High Court decision in Pratima Dave versus State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition No.1317 of 2017 decided on 11 December, 2017) to support this argument. On the other hand, Ms. Jyoti Chavan, Additional Government Pleader for the State, argued that Dr. Madhu's termination was upheld by the High Court already. She submitted that the court had never passed any interim order that reinstated the petitioner while the petition was pending. She argued that as per the final order dated 10 October 1997, the court clearly denied the reinstatement of Dr. Madhu. Court's Reasoning Firstly, the court noted that Dr. Madhu's initial appointment was on a temporary basis against a reserved post, and was terminated because it was not against any clear vacancy. Moreover, the court had also declined the request for reinstatement in the earlier petition. Thus, the services provided from 1 September 1989 were terminated immediately on the disposal of the earlier petition. Thus, the court held that the re-appointment dated 3 March 1998 had to be treated as a fresh appointment made against a clear vacancy. Secondly, the court rejected Dr. Madhu's argument on Rule 30 of the MCSR. The court explained that his new appointment was not made after following the required selection process. Since his services were terminated immediately after the disposal of the earlier petition, the court clarified that his new appointment could not be construed as being ordered by the court. Thirdly, the court distinguished the case of Pratima Dave from the present facts. The bench noted that the initial appointment in Pratima Dave, unlike the present case, was made by a selection committee after following proper selection processes. Thus, the court rejected Dr. Madhu's argument and held that the facts were materially different from this case. Thus, the court held that the re-appointment dated 3 March 1998 was a fresh one and the break in service from October 1997 to March 1998, cannot be condoned for pension calculations. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition. Case title: Dr. V.N. Madhu vs. S.S. & L.S. Patkar-Varde College & Ors. (WRIT PETITION NO.253 OF 2020)Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 163 Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Mihir Desai, Senior Advocate with Ms. Sanskruti Yagnik, Advocate Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Rahul Nerlekar, Ms. Jyoti ...

If Fresh Appointment Made After Termination, Previous Service Period Cannot Be Counted For Pension Calculations: Bombay HC

Pranav Kumar

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Pranav Kumar

If Fresh Appointment Made After Termination, Previous Service Period Cannot Be Counted For Pension Calculations: Bombay HC

Pranav Kumar

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Pranav Kumar

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers