Vrushali V. Joshi , J
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. By the instant petition, the petitioners are challenging the legality and validity of the Government Resolution dated 29.11.2010 issued by the
respondent no.1â€"State Government, inter alia taking away the rights of the petitioners of all the pensionary benefits applicable to them as per the old
pension scheme and started applying the new D.C.P.S. Pension Scheme, in spite of the fact that the appointment of the petitioners were made prior to
the year 2005.
3. According to the petitioners, they are appointed as a Junior College Lecturers. The petitioner nos.1 and 2 were appointed in respondent no.4-
College on sanctioned posts as Junior College Lecturers on probation for the period of two years vide appointment order dated 30.12.1999 and
27.12.1999, which was prior to the year 2005. Likewise the petitioner nos.3 to 5 were also appointed by following the due, procedure of law against
the clear and sanctioned posts of Junior College Lecturers on probation for the period of two years, vide appointment order dated 01.10.2000 and
26.09.2005 issued by the respondent no.4. Thus, it makes clear that the petitioner nos.3 to 5 were appointed prior to 01.11.2005. The appointments of
the petitioners were made by following the due procedure and further the said school was started getting grant-in-aid, though it is mentioned by the
petitioners in the body of petition it is not there, since when they school started getting aid, it is therefore not clear and, therefore, the Education
Officer required to verify whether the school was getting 100% grant and since when. The respondent no.4 sent the proposal of the petitioners to the
respondent no.2 for grant of its approval and the said appointments of the petitioner nos.1 and 2 were duly approved by the respondent no.2 initially on
probation for the period of two years and, thereafter, on regular and permanent basis on 30.10.2001 to petitioner nos.1 to 3 and 08.12.2010 to
petitioner nos.4 and 5.
4. The entire service record of the petitioners was excellent and satisfactory and the petitioners working with the respondent no.4 for more than 15
years and as per Section 5 (3) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 they attained the status
of permanency in the services. As the appointment of the petitioners were held to be duly approved and hence it is the case of the petitioners that they
are entitled to benefit of old pension scheme, in that backdrop, they have sought to challenge the Government Resolution dated 29.11.2010, which
requires service on aided post prior to the cut off date which is 01.11.2005. Since the petitioners have deprived of applicability of the old pension
scheme, they have filed the present writ petition as regards their entitlement to such benefits.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.8990/2021 Smt. Manasi Sudhir Mane @
Aruna Yashwant Patil .vs. The State of Maharashtra and others with connected writ petitions, decided on 11.04.2022. It has been held therein after
referring to earlier decisions of this Court that if an employee had been appointed prior to 01.11.2005 on an unaided post, but the school has been
receiving 100% grant-in-aid prior to 01.11.2005, such employee would be entitled to get the benefit of the old pension scheme as per Government
Resolution dated 19.07.2011. Thereafter directions were issued to examine the case of each petitioner therein to apply benefit of the old pension
scheme if found entitled.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the respondents, we find that a similar exercise of examining the
case of each petitioner for entitlement under the old pension scheme can be issued. Hence for reasons contained in the decision in Smt. Manasi Sudhir
Mane (supra) the following order is passed :
(1) The respondent No.2-Deputy Director of Education is directed to decide the case of each petitioner regarding applicability of the old pension
scheme as per Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 and Maharashtra Civil Services (Computation of Pension) Rules, 1984 and General
Provident Fund Scheme and also after verifying whether the school was receiving 100% grant-in-aid by keeping in view the law laid down by this
Court in its various judgments including the judgment in Smt. Manasi Sudhir Mane (supra).
(2) If it is so found by the Deputy Director of Education that the petitioners are governed by the old pension scheme, the Deputy Director of
Education shall issue necessary directions to not deduct any amount from the salary payable to the petitioners governed by the old pension scheme for
the purposes of its applying to the DCPS or NPS and shall also issue necessary directions for refunding of these amounts to those petitioners from
whose salary same are deducted within four weeks of the date of which such deduction is made.
(3) In case it is found that the petitioners are governed by the old pension scheme, necessary directions shall be issued by the Deputy Director of
Education to open GPF accounts in the name of the petitioners who are found eligible for the same within a period of four weeks of such date on
which their eligibility is determined if such accounts are not already opened.
(4) The petitioners shall appear before the Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur Division, Nagpur on 12-12-2022.
Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
