Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mohan Shamrao Shinde, was appointed as a Lecturer on Clock Hour Basis (CHB) on 20 June 1992 at Padmabhushan Vasantdada Patil Mahavidyalay, Kavathemahankal, through the University Selection Committee. He continued to serve without any break until his retirement, rendering over 24 years of continuous service. The petitioner sought pensionary benefits under the Government Resolutions dated 15 March 1995 and 30 April 1998, as well as the University Grants Commission Regulations. However, by a letter dated 5 June 2018, the Director of Higher Education (Respondent No.2) and the Divisional Joint Director (Respondent No.3) held that the petitioner was not entitled to pensionary benefits. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court. The court heard the parties and considered the facts. The court noted that the petitioner had been continuously employed for a long period and that his appointment was made through the proper channel. The court held that the denial of pensionary benefits was unjustified and quashed the impugned letter. The court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's case for pensionary benefits in light of the applicable Government Resolutions and UGC Regulations within four weeks from the date of the order. The petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Pensionary Benefits - Clock Hour Basis Lecturer - Entitlement to Pension - Government Resolution dated 15/03/1995 and 30/04/1998 - The petitioner, appointed on Clock Hour Basis in 1992, rendered continuous service for 24 years. The court held that the petitioner is entitled to pensionary benefits as per the Government Resolutions and UGC Regulations, and the impugned letter dated 5/06/2018 denying such benefits was quashed. (Paras 1-12) B) Service Law - Continuous Service - Temporary Employee - Regularization - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The court considered the petitioner's long service and the fact that his appointment was through the University Selection Committee. The court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's case for pensionary benefits within four weeks. (Paras 3-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, appointed as a Lecturer on Clock Hour Basis and having rendered continuous service for over 24 years, is entitled to pensionary benefits under the applicable Government Resolutions and University Grants Commission Regulations.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the letter dated 5/06/2018, and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's case for pensionary benefits within four weeks.
Law Points
- Pensionary benefits
- Clock Hour Basis
- Continuous service
- Government Resolution
- Article 226
- University Grants Commission Regulations
