Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Prakash Arjun Rajeshirke (an individual) and Sahyadri Shikshan Sanstha (an educational trust), filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court. The first petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Lecturer in the Art School run by the second petitioner on 28 June 1993 on an unaided basis. On 1 January 2005, the State of Maharashtra issued a Government Resolution sanctioning grant-in-aid to 12 art schools, including the one run by the second petitioner. On 18 May 2009, the Director of Art granted approval to the appointment of the first petitioner as Assistant Lecturer with effect from 1 April 2004, i.e., from the date the grant-in-aid was sanctioned. The first petitioner was promoted to full-time lecturer on 4 October 2009, with approval granted on 12 October 2009. He retired on 30 June 2010. The petitioners sought a direction to the State to pay retirement benefits based on the entire service from 28 June 1993 to 30 June 2010 and arrears from 1 July 2010. The court considered the issue of whether the petitioner was entitled to retiral benefits for the period prior to the grant-in-aid sanction. The court held that since the approval of appointment was granted retrospectively from the date of grant-in-aid sanction, the petitioner's entire service from 1993 to 2010 must be considered for pension and other benefits. The court directed the State to pay the retirement benefits and arrears within a specified period.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Retiral Benefits - Grant-in-Aid Institutions - The petitioner, a lecturer in an unaided art school, sought retirement benefits for his entire service from 1993 to 2010 after the school received grant-in-aid in 2005. The court held that the petitioner is entitled to pension and other retiral benefits for the entire period of service, including the unaided period, as the approval of appointment was granted retrospectively from the date of grant-in-aid sanction. The State was directed to pay arrears from the date of retirement. (Paras 2-8) B) Constitutional Law - Article 226 - Writ Jurisdiction - The High Court exercised its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct the State to pay retirement benefits, holding that the petitioner's service from 1993 to 2010 must be considered for pension and other benefits. (Para 2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to retirement benefits for the entire period of service from 1993 to 2010, including the period prior to the grant-in-aid sanction in 2005, and whether the State is liable to pay such benefits.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondent no.1 to pay the retirement benefits and arrears to the petitioner no.1 based on his entire service from 28 June 1993 to 30 June 2010, within a specified period.
Law Points
- Retiral benefits
- grant-in-aid
- unaided institution
- approval of appointment
- retrospective effect
- pension
- arrears
