The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition by a retired Group-A state health officer, upholding the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal’s refusal to allow his prior university service to be counted for pension and other service benefits, after his earlier employment ended in resignation following disciplinary action.
The case arose after the petitioner, an ex-Indian Air Force member who served as Assistant Registrar at Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University (1992–2000), was selected for a higher government post in the Public Health Department via MPSC (1999). However, pending his appointment, he was terminated by the University after a disciplinary inquiry. On judicial intervention, the High Court replaced the termination with a resignation effective 12 October 2000, at the employee’s request and on his undertaking not to make monetary claims, except for provident fund dues.
When the petitioner was appointed as Chief Administrative Officer in March 2005, he sought to bridge the intervening break and have his earlier university service counted towards seniority and pension under Rule 46(2) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, arguing his employment was always state pensionable, the break was not his fault, pointing to departmental recommendations and claimed precedents.
The Bench comprising Justice M.S. Karnik and Justice N.R. Borkar traced the facts, including the earlier decision wherein the petitioner’s termination was replaced by resignation “in the interest of mercy”. The Court affirmed the Tribunal’s finding that such resignation entailed forfeiture of past service (under Rule 46(1)), and that the exception for counting prior service (Rule 46(2)) did not apply in the petitioner’s case.
The Court reasoned that “proper permission” to resign for new government appointment was absent since the resignation followed disciplinary punishment, and noted that the appointment to the new post was a fresh appointment.
The Court also rejected pleas for condonation of service break, deemed increments, and time-scale promotions. The Tribunal’s order, apart from the adverse remarks about suppression of facts, was affirmed.
For the Petitioner: Adv. Vinod Tayade
For the Respondents-State: Mr. N. C. Walimbe, Addl.G.P. a/w Mr. S. P. Kamble, AGP