ORDER
Per S.H. Kapadia, J.
1. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction against the respondents, requiring the respondents to give due weightage to the petitioner’s service rendered by her as a teacher in the school managed by Zilla Parishad for the purposes of the fixation of pay, seniority and pensionary benefits.
2. The facts giving rise to this writ petition, briefly, are as follows:
3. Petitioner is a duly trained and qualified primary teacher. She joined as a full time primary teacher with Pune Zilla Parishad in June, 1963. In January 1973, she applied for the post of primary teacher in Pune Municipal School through proper channel. Her resignation was accepted by the Zilla Parishad, Pune on 22nd February, 1973 and accordingly, she joined Municipal School No. 26 at Pune. Her pay was fixed at Rs. 120/- per month. According to the petitioner, her salary should have been fixed at Rs. 140/- per month. This was on the basis that the petitioner sought to place reliance on Rule 46(2) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (See Rule 46(2)). On 15th December, 1981, petitioner represented to the Deputy Director of Education, Pune, praying for protection of her salary, seniority and pensionary benefits. However, by the impugned order dated 15th July, 1983 passed by respondent No. 1, her representation came to be rejected. Under the above circumstances, the present writ petition came to be filed.
4. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, in the present matter, relied upon Government Resolution dated July 30, 1991 issued by the Government. He contended that the Government Resolution refers to admissibility of services rendered in Zilla Parishad by a teacher. He pointed out that under the said Government Resolution, the petitioner was entitled to weightage in respect of the services rendered by the petitioner in the Zilla Parishad School. He pointed out that under the said Government Resolution, it is clearly laid down that the services rendered by the teacher in the erstwhile Zilla Parishad School were admissible for pensionary benefits. In the present matter, it was further submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner resigned from the Zilla Parishad School and her resignation came to be accepted and thereafter, she joined the School of the Corporation and in the circumstances, it would not be proper to discount the services rendered by the teacher in the Zilla Parishad School, particularly with regard to pensionary benefits.
5. On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of the Government and respondent No. 5 that a bare reading of the said Circular clearly indicates that the teachers are entitled to the benefit of weightage of the services rendered in the School, subject to their complying with the provisions of Rule 46(2) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. It was pointed out that under the Circular, it is clearly mentioned that if any teacher has rendered service in the primary school of Zilla Parishad, then such services
were admissible for pensionary benefits as per the prevailing Rules. It was submitted that the expression as per the prevailing Rules in the said Government Resolution dated 30th July, 1991 indicates compliance of Rule 46(2) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. It was contended that under Rule 46(2) of the Maharashtra Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1982, the teacher working in the Zilla Parishad was required to take permission before she claims the benefit of the past services rendered by the teacher in the Zilla Parishad School and since in the present case, no such permission was obtained from the authorities, she was not entitled to weightage in respect of the services rendered by her in the Zilla Parishad School. Reliance was also placed on the Circular dated 9th September, 1986 which refers to cases where the Schools belonging to the Zilla Parishad fall in the area subsequently covered by the Corporation area. It was further pointed that the Government Resolution dated 30th July, 1991 was clarificatory in nature and that it sought to clarify Rule 46(2) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 and if the said Government Resolution is read as clarificatory in nature, then it is clear that the teacher who resigns from the Zilla Parishad School was required to take permission from the competent authority and only on her getting such permission, her services rendered in the Zilla Parishad School could be taken into account for the purposes of admissibility of the pensionary benefits.
6. We find merit in the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. The Government Resolution dated 30th July, 1991 shows that it had been issued by the Government in the matter of admissibility of services rendered in Zilla Parishad by a teacher. The recital to the said Government Resolution indicates that the Government considered the question of treating services rendered by teachers in Zilla Parishad Schools, who subsequently joined the Corporation Schools, after tendering their resignations from the Schools of Zilla Parishad and after considering the said situation, the Government has issued directives that services rendered by the teacher in Primary Schools would be held admissible for pensionary benefits, subject to compliance of certain conditions, one of the conditions being that the concerned Primary teacher who has taken part of the Provident Fund, would be required to credit the said amount, with interest, with the Government so as to enable the teacher, to get the benefit of pension on her joining the services of the School of the Corporation. In fact, the directives make it very clear that the Management of the School would be required to bear the capitalized value of the pro rata pensionary liability which clearly indicates that the said Government Resolution dated July 31, 1991 cannot be said to be clarificatory as submitted on behalf of the respondents. It is true that the said Government Resolution uses the words/expression “admissibility for pensionary benefits as per the prevalent Rules”. However, we do not find any reason to read the said expression so as to include Rule 46(2) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. If the argument advanced by the respondents is accepted, it would render the issuance of Government Resolution dated 30th July, 1991 totally nugatory. Moreover, the Government has nowhere indicated that the permission is required to be obtained of a particular authority in the Government Resolution dated July 30, 1991 Moreover, no authority has been designated in the Government Resolution. The Court in matters of admissibility of pensionary benefits should read, as far as possible, the Government Resolutions in a manner which would extend the benefit to teachers who have rendered service of large number of years as teachers. In the circumstances, in the present case, we are of the view that the service rendered by the petitioner in the Zilla Parishad School were required to be taken into account for the pensionary benefits, subject to compliance of Clause (2) of the Government Resolution dated July 30, 1991. We make it clear that this Order is restricted to the question of taking into account the service rendered by the petitioner in the Zilla Parishad School for the purposes of admissibility of pension only.
7. Accordingly, Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer Clause (b), excluding the bracketed portion. Praying (b) reads as follows :
“(b) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction against respondents jointly and severally requiring them to give due weightage of petitioner’s service tenure with Zilla Parishad School for the purpose of (Fixation/protection of pay, seniority), pensionary benefits.”
8. The Government will inform the petitioner, the rate of interest which the petitioner is required to pay while depositing the part of Provident Fund as stipulated by Clause 2 of the Government Resolution dated July 30, 1991 within a period of four (4) weeks. Issuance of certified copy expedited.
9. Rule made absolute.