{"id":327050,"date":"2024-07-22T10:10:29","date_gmt":"2024-07-22T04:40:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=327050"},"modified":"2024-07-25T12:40:43","modified_gmt":"2024-07-25T07:10:43","slug":"bombay-hc-retired-professor-pensionary-benefits-authorities-perform-formalities","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/22\/bombay-hc-retired-professor-pensionary-benefits-authorities-perform-formalities\/","title":{"rendered":"Bombay HC holds retired professor entitled to pensionary benefits; directs authorities to perform formalities"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Bombay High Court<\/span>: The Division Bench of Nitin Jamdar*<\/span> and M.M. Sathaye, JJ., decided on a petition filed by a retired university professor, aggrieved of the respondents’ indecision on the status of her pensionary benefits. The respondents contended that certain formalities were not performed on the part of Respondent 3, the Savitribai Phule Pune University (“University”), thereby rendering the petitioner ineligible for pensionary benefits. The Court observed the non-performance of formalities on the part of the university was not the petitioner’s fault, and thereby instructed the university to perform the requisite formalities and directed the respondents to take a decision on the same within eight weeks. Notwithstanding, the Court held that given the undisputed and unobjected service of twenty-three years of the petitioner, they were entitled to pensionary benefits.<\/p>\n

Background<\/p>\n

The petitioner was appointed to the post of a Reader in Chemistry at the University’s Department of Chemistry against the post reserved for Nomadic tribe (“DT\/NT”) category, temporarily for six months in 1993. Thereafter, the petitioner’s appointment continued against the post reserved for the DT\/NT category from 1994 to 1995.<\/p>\n

The petitioner submitted an application in 1995 for the position of Lecturer in Chemistry at the University and was temporarily appointed to that position against the post reserved for Schedule Tribes (“ST”) category. The temporary appointment was extended until 2006.<\/p>\n

In 2006, the petitioner applied for the position of Reader-Open Category at the University and was appointed to that position in the University on probation for a period of two years. The petitioner’s position as Reader-Open Category was confirmed in 2008.<\/p>\n

The petitioner had five breaks in service, amounting to a total number of 51 days, during their temporary appointments within the reserved categories. The University had condoned these breaks in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 07-03-1986.<\/p>\n

After serving as a Reader for three years, the petitioner’s title was changed to Associate Professor and subsequently, the petitioner was promoted to the position of Professor. The petitioner retired at the age of 60 in 2016. Upon retirement, the petitioner submitted all her relevant documentation to the Joint Director of Higher Education in Pune (“respondent 4”).<\/p>\n

The petitioner had thus completed a service of twenty-three years at the University but was denied pensionary benefits. Hence, the instant petition was filed by the aggrieved petitioner.<\/p>\n

Court’s analysis and judgment<\/p>\n

The Court noted that the University supported the petitioner’s case by stating that the petitioner’s service was continuous since 1993 until 2016.<\/p>\n

The Court further noted that respondents 1 and 2, .i.e, the State and the Auditor of Department of Higher Education, respectively, were trying to separate the petitioner’s employment period from 1993 until 2006 and from 2006 to 2016. The point of differentiation contended by them was that the service of the petitioner from 1993 until 2006 was against a reserved category post, whereas thereafter, it was in the open category. Based on that premise, the contention of respondents 1 and 2 was that the University could not have condoned the break of service and treated the period of her employment as continuous since 1993 to 2016, and that it could not have de-reserved the posts.<\/p>\n

The Court also noted that the petitioner in 2010 deposited a sum of Rs. 1,26,120 with Respondent 2 towards the General Provident Fund. It was further noted that the petitioner was never communicated that the condonation of her break of service was improper and that the petitioner would not be entitled to pensionary benefits.<\/p>\n

The Court observed that since 1993, the petitioner continued to secure appointment at the University for posts against reserved categories, and at no point was her appointment refused, discontinued, or objected to.<\/p>\n

The Court noted the submission of the University that despite advertising the vacant posts reserved for the Scheduled Castes-Scheduled Tribes (“SC-ST”) category, no candidates from the category concerned were available, therefore, the petitioner was given the appointment. The Court stated that what remained was the formality of an order to be passed by respondent 1 declaring the de-reservation of the post for the period concerned.<\/p>\n

The Court observed that the proposal for the de-reservation of the post had to be submitted by the University and since the University did not submit the same, it was not the petitioner’s fault.<\/p>\n

The Court further observed that if the contention of respondents 1 and 2 were to be followed, the same would be highly inequitable towards the petitioner, who in her advanced age would be rendered without any pensionary benefits.<\/p>\n

The Court emphasised that the University and respondent 1 did not object to the petitioner’s continuation of service for twenty-three years. Therefore, depriving the petitioner of pensionary benefits on the ground that a formal order of de-reservation was not passed, even though the ingredients were satisfied, would be unjust.<\/p>\n

Therefore, the Court deemed it appropriate to direct-<\/p>\n