AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
1] Rule made returnable forthwith. It is informed that Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are not the contesting respondents and hence, all the respondents
being served, the matter can be finally disposed of. The contesting respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have already filed reply on affidavit.
2] The petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher by an order dated 12.07.1997 by following procedure prescribed under the
Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Act and Rules framed thereunder. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was
qualified for being appointed to the said post, but the appointment was made on temporary basis for a period of one year for the reason that the
petitioner was appointed in the vacancy which caused due to termination of service of one Smt. Ghadge, who had preferred an appeal before the
School Tribunal. Since the matter was pending before the School Tribunal for adjudication, the appointment of the petitioner was continued on
year to year basis and accordingly, approval was also granted to her appointment by the Education Officer upto 01.07.2008, when she was appointed
on regular basis.  The petitioner continued to work as an Assistant Teacher on regular basis thereafter and now she is to retired in the month of
September 2019.
3] On the basis of the Government Resolution dated 31.10.2005, more particularly clause 4(b) therein, it is the stand taken by the respondent Nos. 3
and 4 in their affidavit that the petitioner was recruited on regular basis for the first time on 01.07.2008 and therefore, the pension scheme introduced
by Government Resolution dated 31.10.2005 shall not be applicable to the petitioner and the service rendered by the petitioner prior to 01.07.2008
cannot be taken into consideration so as to make her eligible for grant of pension.
4] We find that the stand taken by the respondents in the affidavit is wrong.  The petitioner was recruited in service initially on 12.07.1997 after
following the procedure prescribed under the M.E.P.S. Act and the Rules framed thereunder. It is not the stand of the respondents that the
appointment was lnot in accordance with the provisions. The only impediment in the way of the petitioner is that the appeal filed by an employee
who was terminated from service and in whose place the petitioner was appointed, was pending for adjudication. It is not in dispute that in spite of
adjudication in favour of the said employee by the School Tribunal, she has refused to join the school, as a result the petitioner was continued in
employment on regular basis on 01.07.2008. It cannot, therefore, be said that the initial appointment of the petitioner on 12.07.1997 was not against
the sanctioned post or the permanent vacancy. The service of the petitioner will have to be counted from 12.07.1997 for the purposes of grant of
pension and all other benefits in terms of the G.R.dated 31.10.2005.
5] In view of above, this writ petition is allowed. The communication dated 30.07.2012 issued by Respondent No. 4  Superintendent, Pay Unit
(Secondary), Department of Education, Yavatmal, is hereby quashed and set aside, only to the extent it is against the petitioner. The respondents
are directed to treat the petitioner as continuous in employment on regular basis from 12.07.1997 and she be held entitled to pension as per the old
pension scheme prevailing prior to 01.11.2005.
Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to cost.