The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) has reiterated that subsequent pensionable service rendered after retirement is liable to be counted along with past service for determination of pensionary benefits. Reference was made to the case of Madhukar vs. State of Maharashtra and others [(2014) 15 SCC 565].
The reiteration came after finding that while fixing the pay of the petitioner after joining Prabhavati Vidyalaya, pension was taken into account and any excess amount was subsequently recovered and refunded to the Government. The petitioner seeks only single consolidated pension by treating both pensionable services as one continuous service. Such claim does not amount to grant of double pension.
The Court therefore, directed the respondents to count and club the service rendered by the petitioner in Zilla Parishad service and in Prabhavati Vidyalaya, as one continuous qualifying service for the purpose of pension, in terms of Rule 153 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Kishore C. Sant and Justice Sushil M. Ghodeswar observed that the first part of Rule 153 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 clarifies that re-employment ordinarily does not qualify for a second pension. However, the latter part of the Rule is explicit and mandatorily provides that where the new service is pensionable, it must be combined with the service previously rendered and the whole service be treated as one service for the purpose of calculating pension. Once it is undisputed that the post of Headmaster in Prabhavati Vidyalaya is pensionable, the consequence under Rule 153 necessarily follows.
The Bench also referred to Rule 66-A of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, that govern voluntary retirement and the grant of pension with addition of qualifying service subject to the condition that the total qualifying service does not exceed 33 years and it does not take the employee beyond the date of superannuation.
Rules 66 and 66-A do not operate as a bar to the counting of subsequent pensionable service. Whereas, Rule 153 operates in a distinct field and applies where, after retirement, a government servant renders further service in a pensionable post, added the Bench.
Thus, the Bench clarified that merely because pension was initially sanctioned by giving weightage to Rule 66-A, the statutory mandate under Rule 153 to combine the earlier and subsequent pensionable services, is not taken away. Both provisions are required to be harmoniously construed so as to give effect to the scheme of the Pension Rules.
Briefly, the petitioner had rendered services as Assistant Teacher in Zilla Parishad High School for about 27 years, and then opted for voluntary retirement. Immediately on the next day, he joined as Headmaster in Prabhavati Vidyalaya, Parbhani, run by Swami Vivekanand Shikshan Sanstha. Prabhavati Vidyalaya is the grant-in-aid school and he worked there till his retirement. After his superannuation, the pension proposal was forwarded by the Education Department to the Accountant General, State of Maharashtra, to count the services rendered by the petitioner in both schools, for grant of combined pension.
However, the said pension proposal was sent back for re-examination by stating therein that Rules 39 and 153 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 prohibit counting of new service as qualifying service for combining two services for pension since the petitioner had obtained voluntary retirement and, therefore, he is not eligible for counting his new service. Thereafter, the petitioner had submitted several representations to the respondent authorities requesting to consider his case and count his services rendered at Prabhavati Vidyalaya.
The petitioner also approached the Lok-Ayukta of Maharashtra, who had recommended his case to the Government of Maharashtra for counting his new service for pensionary benefits. However, the respondent No.1/ Principal Secretary refused to accept the recommendation of the Lok-Ayukta for the reason that after voluntary retirement from the Zilla Parishad school, subsequent service of the petitioner cannot be considered for pensionary benefits.
Appearances:
Advocate Vivek J. Dhage, for the Petitioner
AGP Jayashri P. Reddy, for the Respondents
