"A Part-Time Teacher Cannot Claim Pension Benefits": Bombay High Court Upholds MEPS and Maharashtra Civil Services Rules
Safiya Malik
The Bombay High Court, in a judgement delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe, stated against granting pension benefits to a retired part-time teacher. The case revolved around the petitioner’s claim for pension and gratuity, which was denied on the grounds that her employment as a part-time teacher in a Night Junior College did not meet the eligibility criteria under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Services) Regulation Act, 1977 (MEPS Act) and the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982.
The petitioner, Mrs. Rajani Rajan Dixit (alias Rajani Tukaram Washimbekar), a retired teacher, approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking directives for pension and gratuity benefits. The respondents in the case included the State of Maharashtra, Director of Education (Secondary), Deputy Director of Education (Secondary), Secretary, Department of Education (Secondary), Education Officer (Secondary), Maratha Samaj Seva Mandal (management body), the Principal of Chhatrapati Shivaji Night Junior College, and the Accountant General (A&E), Mumbai.
The petitioner contended that she was initially appointed as a part-time teacher on June 4, 1984, at Chhatrapati Shivaji Night Junior College, an institution managed by the Maratha Samaj Seva Mandal. Subsequently, she was appointed as a full-time Marathi teacher on a temporary basis from June 15, 1985, for one academic year. However, the approval for her appointment as a full-time teacher was rejected by the education department through an order issued on December 22, 1985.
On June 10, 1986, her services were terminated. The petitioner challenged the termination before the School Tribunal by filing an appeal (Appeal No. 104 of 1986). The tribunal stated partially in her favor on September 29, 1986, awarding compensation of Rs. 2,000 but not reinstatement.
Dissatisfied with the tribunal’s judgement, the petitioner approached the Bombay High Court through Writ Petition No. 3510 of 1987. The High Court allowed the petition based on a minute of order filed by the respondents. The order directed her reinstatement, specifying that she "shall not be treated as temporary anymore and her salary arrears will be paid within two weeks." Following this, she resumed duties on November 21, 1988.
Despite her reinstatement, issues concerning her employment status persisted. The college submitted a proposal seeking approval for her appointment on November 21, 1988, which was granted. However, on March 31, 1989, the respondents once again terminated her services. This led her to file a contempt petition (Contempt Petition No. 135/1989) against the management. The High Court stated in her favor on September 5, 1989, ordering her reinstatement with back wages. She resumed duties on September 11, 1989.
In 1991, the petitioner, along with other teachers, filed Writ Petition No. 5709 of 1991 seeking recognition of their full-time workload and pay scale. The High Court dismissed this petition on February 19, 1992. She then filed Appeal No. 61 of 1992 before the School Tribunal, Pune. In its order dated October 6, 1993, the tribunal declared that she should be treated as a full-time teacher from the academic year 1985-86, with all benefits, including continuity of service and consequential benefits.
The college management challenged this tribunal order by filing Writ Petition No. 3756 of 1994 before the High Court. On November 28, 2006, the High Court set aside the tribunal’s order and stated that teachers in Night Junior Colleges should not be considered full-time teachers and were not entitled to regular pay scales under the MEPS Rules, 1981. The petitioner did not challenge this decision before the Supreme Court.
Upon her retirement on March 31, 2014, the petitioner made multiple representations to the authorities requesting pension benefits. A final rejection was communicated through a letter dated January 16, 2015, stating that part-time teachers were not eligible for pension under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982.
The High Court examined Rule 19 of the MEPS Rules, which states that "an employee of an aided secondary school and aided Junior College of Education working on a full-time basis and retiring on or after the 1st April 1966 shall be eligible for pension at the rates sanctioned by the Government." The court held that the petitioner did not meet the criteria of a full-time teacher and thus was not entitled to pension under this rule.
Additionally, the court referred to Rule 57 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, which states that "Government servants who are paid for work done for Government but who’s whole-time is not retained for public service" are excluded from pension benefits. The cour stated that this provision applied to the petitioner, barring her from claiming pensionary benefits.
The court also examined the Secondary School Code, which defines Night Schools as institutions that conduct classes for a duration of 2 to 3 hours per day. It referred to Rule 67(1)(a)(4), which states that "service rendered in Night High Schools by teaching and non-teaching employees will be regarded as part-time service and dealt with accordingly."
Furthermore, Rule 70.4 of the Secondary School Code explicitly states that "Part-time employees and those working in Night High Schools are not eligible either to the Provident Fund Scheme or to Pension Scheme."
In Writ Petition No. 3756 of 1994, the Bombay High Court had already determined that teachers working in Night Junior Colleges should not be considered full-time teachers and would not be entitled to a regular pay scale under the MEPS Rules, 1981. The present bench upheld this judgement, holding that it had attained finality since the petitioner had not challenged it before the Supreme Court.
The High Court dismissed the petition, stating that "a part-time teacher who continued to work on the post of part-time teacher in a Junior Night College is not entitled to the benefit of pension." The rule was discharged with no order as to costs, effectively denying the petitioner any pensionary benefits.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Khateeb Vakil, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. P.P. Kakade, Additional Government Pleader along with Smt. Priyanka B. Chavan, AGP –State, Mr. A.S. Kalekar, Advocate for Respondent No.6
Case title: Mrs. Rajani Rajan Dixit v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:11831-DB
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 14007 of 2017
Bench: Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge & Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe
[Read/Download order]
