The Petitioner, after 33 years of service with Savitribai Phule Pune University, was denied pensionary benefits and filed a Writ Petition. The Petitioner’s service included several temporary appointments from 1993 to 2006, and a confirmed appointment in 2006. The University supported the Petitioner, confirming continuous service, while the State argued that the service prior to 2006 was temporary and under a different pension scheme. The Court ruled in favor of the Petitioner, directing the University to submit a de-reservation proposal and the State to process the pension, considering the Petitioner's service from 1993.

1. Introduction

The Petitioner completed 33 years of service with Savitribai Phule Pune University and filed a Writ Petition due to being denied pensionary benefits.

2. Background of the Case

• Initial Appointments (1992-1995): Petitioner applied for a Reader position in 1992 and was temporarily appointed in 1993 against reserved posts for Nomadic Tribe and DT/NT categories.
• Lecturer Position (1995-2006): Petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in Chemistry on a temporary basis against the Scheduled Tribes category from 1995, with extensions until 2006.
• Permanent Appointment (2006): In 2006, Petitioner applied for and was appointed as a Reader in the Open Category, confirmed in 2008.
• Service Continuation: Despite five breaks in service (51 days), these were condoned by the University Vice Chancellor.

3. Post-Retirement Developments

• Retirement and Pension Submission: Petitioner retired on 30 April 2016, and pension paperwork was submitted.
• Lack of Response: With no response from the State, the Petitioner filed the Writ Petition in 2020.

4. Arguments and Responses

• State's Position: The State separated the service periods (1993-2006 and 2006-2016), arguing that the first period was temporary and against reserved posts, thus falling under a new pension scheme starting 1 November 2005.
• Petitioner's Position: Petitioner relied on Rule 33 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, claiming eligibility for pensionary benefits for continuous service from 1993.
• University's Support: The University supported the Petitioner, confirming continuous service and the condonation of breaks.

5. Court's Analysis and Decision

• Rule 33 Application: The Court acknowledged that under Rule 33, even temporary service followed by confirmation qualifies for pension.
• De-reservation and Continuity: The post was repeatedly advertised without candidates, fulfilling de-reservation conditions. The University and State never objected during the Petitioner's service.
• Directive for De-reservation Proposal: The University must submit a de-reservation proposal for the Petitioner's service from 1993 to 2006, which the State must process, considering the factual and equitable circumstances.

6. Conclusion and Orders

• Entitlement to Pension: The Court declared the Petitioner entitled to pensionary benefits, counting service from 1993.
• Action Plan: The University to submit the de-reservation proposal within three weeks, and the State to issue necessary orders and disburse pension within eight weeks.
• Final Ruling: The Rule is made absolute, and the Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.