18 July 2024 Education >> Miscellaneous   |   Unpaid salary/bonus/gratuity >> Workplace/ Professional Related  

In a recent judicial decision in the case of  Dr. Satyawati Sudhir Joshi v/s State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Higher & Technical Education Department, Mumbai & Others, the court has ruled in favor of a petitioner who served for over three decades with Savitribai Phule Pune University, ensuring their right to pensionary benefits despite earlier administrative hurdles. The case sheds light on the complexities of pension claims involving long service with both reserved and open category appointments.

Case Overview:

The petitioner, having dedicated 33 years to Savitribai Phule Pune University, sought redress through a writ petition after being denied pension benefits. The dispute centered on whether their service from 1993 to 2006 should count towards their pension, given that breaks in their service had been condoned. The petitioner’s employment began in 1993 with a temporary appointment as a Reader in the university’s Chemistry department, initially filling a post reserved for nomadic tribes. Over time, their role evolved, and they were confirmed as a Reader in the open category in June 2008, eventually being promoted to Professor in 2012. The petitioner retired in April 2016.

Legal and Administrative Dispute:

The core issue was whether the petitioner’s pre-2006 service, which included several temporary and category-reserved appointments, should be considered for pension benefits. The University supported the petitioner’s claim, acknowledging the continuity of service and the condonation of breaks. However, the State of Maharashtra contended that the petitioner’s service before 2006 should be treated separately, arguing that only post-2006 service qualifies for the old pension scheme due to changes in regulations.

Court’s Ruling:

The court's judgment emphasized that despite technicalities and administrative changes, the petitioner’s service should be recognized as continuous, citing Rule 33 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. This rule stipulates that temporary or officiating service followed by confirmation in the same or another post qualifies for pension, except in specified cases.

The court directed the University to formally submit a proposal for the de-reservation of the petitioner’s post from 1993 to 2006. The State Government was instructed to process the pension papers and disburse benefits based on this formal recognition.

Implementation Timeline:

The court set a timeline for compliance:

• University's Action: Submit the de-reservation proposal within three weeks.
• State Government's Action: Issue necessary orders and disburse pension benefits within eight weeks following the proposal.