HC grants teacher pending pension, 6% interest

Court rules Pratima Dave’s qualifying service commenced in 1996

21 years after her appointment, the Bombay High Court has brought relief to a retired teacher by ruling that she be paid pension for employment since 1996, with 6% interest per annum.

A Division Bench of Justice B.P. Colabawalla and Justice B.R. Gavai was recently hearing a plea filed by Pratima Dave, challenging an order passed on May 12, 2015, rejecting the proposal for her retirement dues.

Ms. Dave was initially appointed in a college on August 20, 1993, through a local selection committee. Through a duly-constituted selection committee, Ms. Dave was appointed on July 12, 1996.

Since the post to which she was appointed was for a reserved category (Scheduled Caste) and since she does not belong to a reserved category, she was initially appointed only for a year. Since a reserved category candidate was not available, Ms. Dave continued on the same post on a year-to-year basis.

Meanwhile, Mumbai University had submitted a proposal to the State for de-reservation of the post held by Ms. Dave, and when the proposal was pending, the college continued to appoint her to the same post, on a temporary basis. Therefore, she moved court, and on December 22, 2011, the State directed the university to release all increments to her.

Then, Ms. Dave was appointed as an assistant professor in an open category. After turning 60, she was granted an extension of two years, as per the then prevailing policy of the State. On completion of 62 years, she got superannuated, and she then made an application to the college to give her pensionary benefits, which was rejected.

Hiten Venegavkar, additional government pleader, told the court that as per Rule 30 (commencement of qualifying service) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, Ms. Dave is not entitled to the pensionary benefits as she did not complete the qualifying services of 10 years after her regular appointment, and that on this ground, the petition must be dismissed.

The court said that since Ms. Dave was initially appointed on July 12, 1996, her qualifying services would commence on that date. The court said Ms. Dave put in 18 years of service and not 10.

The court quashed the order passed in 2015 and held that Ms. Dave is entitled to the pension and her qualifying services would commence on July 12, 1996, and that she be paid the amount with 6% interest per annum.