The petitioner, who served as a Full-Time Lecturer at the Agricultural Development Trust (Respondent No. 3), was appointed on August 18, 1993, and confirmed in her role in May 1996. The college operated on a non grant-in-aid basis until it received approval for grant-in-aid status on July 1, 2004. Due to health issues, the petitioner opted for voluntary retirement, submitting her resignation on April 29, 2017, which was accepted, relieving her from duty on July 31, 2017.

The petitioner’s continuous service totaled nearly 24 years; however, her eligibility for pension benefits came into question due to the 20-year qualifying service requirement. This led to her petition, invoking a precedent set in the case of Dnyaneshwar s/o Shankarrao Marotkar vs. State of Maharashtra, which established that prior service before the institution received grant-in-aid should be considered for pension calculations.

In the Marotkar case, the court ruled that employees of educational institutions that transitioned to grant-in-aid status could count their service prior to that change toward their qualifying years for pension benefits. This ruling emphasized that as long as an employee was in service at the time the institution was receiving grant-in-aid, they were entitled to the associated benefits.

Despite arguments from the government opposing the applicability of the Marotkar judgment—claiming that the petitioner’s voluntary retirement disqualified her from receiving pension benefits—the court countered that opting for voluntary retirement does not inherently deprive an employee of their pension rights.

The court found that the petitioner’s case aligned closely with the Marotkar ruling, thus entitling her to the pension benefits. It mandated that the respondents calculate the necessary retirement benefits, including statutory interest on delayed payments, within 30 days. The ruling specified that payments should be made in two equal installments by mid-January 2025.

The court also highlighted the need for fair treatment of employees who choose to retire voluntarily, reinforcing that such decisions should not diminish their entitlement to benefits accrued during their service.

This ruling not only secures the petitioner’s pension benefits but also sets a precedent for future cases involving voluntary retirement and pension eligibility. It underscores the judiciary's commitment to uphold the rights of employees in the education sector and ensures that all service years, irrespective of grant-in-aid status at the time, are recognized for pension calculations. The decision serves as a vital reminder of the importance of fairness and justice in employment practices, particularly regarding retirement and associated benefits.