Nandakumar Shakaram Wakade vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors.

(PER: ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.) :

Since common question of law and facts are involved, these Writ Petitions are being decided by this common Judgment.

By these Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution India, the petitioners are challenging condition incorporated in their absorption/appointment orders by which though their services were transferred to the Respondent No. 4-Zilla Parishad From 10% reservation of employees of Village Panchayat, however, they are held to be ineligible to claim the benefits of Old Pension Scheme (hereinafter called as “OPS”) on the ground that their absorption is after the cut-off date prescribed under Government Resolution dated 31.10.2005 (Hereinafter called as “the said Government Resolution ”).

The petitioners also seek directions to consider their services with the erstwhile Village Panchayats for grant of pensionary benefits under OPS in view of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1967’).

The petitioners claim that they were employed with erstwhile Village Panchayats. They were absorbed/appointed by Respondent No.4 - Zilla Parishad. Some of the petitioners have superannuated, whereas, some are still working with Respondent No.4. The details of the petitioners are summarized in following tabular form:

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that, the petitioners were absorbed in Respondent No. 4 by virtue of Rule 10-A of the Rules of 1967 on the respective dates as shown in the aforesaid table from 10% reservation of employees of Village Panchayats. However in their absorption orders, Respondent No. 4 incorporated a clause containing that the petitioners will not be entitled for OPS in view of said Government Resolution. He further submits that, since the petitioners’ initial appointments with the Village Panchayats were prior to the said Government Resolution, they are entitled to the benefits of OPS. The Clause contained in absorption order thereby depriving them of the said benefits is arbitrary and unreasonable.

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that, similarly circumstanced employees absorbed/appointed from 10% reservation of employees of Village Panchayats have been given benefits of OPS whereas depriving the petitioners of the said benefits is discriminatory and therefore, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In support of his submissions he relied on the decisions of the Co-ordinate bench of this Court at Nagpur in Writ Petition No. 2495 of 2024 in the case of Ramshankar S/o Ramadhar Mishra Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others with connected Writ Petitions decided on 11.06.2026 and at Kolhapur Circuit Bench in Civil Writ Petition (ST.) No. 6514 of 2026 in the case of Lunge Ramesh Nathu Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another with connected Writ Petitions decided on 05.08.2026.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.4 would submit that, before accepting the absorption/appointment Orders, the petitioners have tendered resignations of their services with the respective Village Panchayats. He further submits that, as per Rule 10-A (5) of Rules of 1967, any Panchayat servant before joining the post of District Service have to resign from the post in Village Panchayat, in view thereof clause in absorption/appointment orders sought to be challenged is in consonance with Rule 10-A (5) of Rules of 1967. He would submit that, the petitioners’ earlier services with the Village Panchayats therefore cannot be considered for grant of benefits of OPS. The petitioners have been absorbed with Respondent No. 4 after the Cut-off date i.e. 31.10.2005 prescribed under the said Government Resolution. In support of his submissions he relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and others Vs. Hitkishore Goswami; 2015 (11) SCC 199. He therefore urged for dismissal of the Writ Petitions.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGP for the State, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.4 at length and with their able assistance, we have perused the record as well as the judgments cited by both the sides.

Before adverting to the rival submissions advanced by both the sides, it would be apt to refer to the provision of Rule 10-A of Rules of 1967 which reads thus:-

Bare perusal of the aforesaid Rule makes it clear that, an employee of Village Panchayat is eligible for being appointed/absorbed to the post of Class-III and IV in a District Services. Rule 10-A (5) of Rules of 1967, however, provides that, before joining the District Services, the employee of Village Panchayat will have to tender his resignation. Admittedly, the petitioners have tendered resignations from their services and accepted the absorption/appointment orders from Respondent No. 4 without demur.

The petitioners were aware of the consequences of tendering resignations before accepting the absorption/appointment orders with Respondent No. 4. Having accepted and worked pursuant thereto, the petitioners after attaining superannuation are now making a grievance about the said clause, which disentitle them from claiming the benefits of OPS. We therefore are of the considered view that, the petitioners are estopped by doctrine of acquiescence. We find that the said clause is in tune with Rule 10-A (5) of Rules of 1967, and therefore cannot be said to be bad in law.

We find that judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the Respondent No.4 in the case of Hitkishore Goswami (supra) is squarely applicable to the cases in hand, wherein, the Hon’ble the Apex Court while dealing with the effect of resignation tendered by an employee from earlier services to claim the continuity and past services while fixing pension, held thus:

So far as decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners in case of Ramshankar S/o Ramadhar Mishra (Supra) and Lunge Ramesh Nathu (Supra) are concerned, those are clearly distinguishable for the simple reason that, in those cases the Village Panchayat employees appointed from 10% reservation were denied the benefits of OPS on the ground that, their recruitment was not preceded by a formal advertisement prior to 01.11.2005, whereas, in the present cases, the petitioners had tendered their resignations and accepted the absorption/appointment orders with the Respondent No.4 after 01.11.2005. Therefore the judgments cited (Supra) by learned Counsel for the petitioners are not applicable to the facts of the present case.

In view of aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered view that, the petitioners are not entitled for the benefits of OPS, since they have been absorbed/appointed in Respondent No.4-Zilla Prishad after the cut-off date as contemplated under the said Government Resolution. The Writ Petitions being devoid of any substance deserve to be dismissed.

In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed.