1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 660 OF 1999 Mohd. Adam Ali Khan .... PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Oths. .... RESPONDENTS Ms. Surekha Mahajan, Assistant Govt. Pleader for State. Mr. K.G.Patil, Assistant Govt. Pleader for State. ............................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE: 09/08/2010 ORDER ORDER : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner seeks writ of mandamus challenging the order passed by respondent no. 4 dated 4/6/1998 and has further prayed for direction to respondent no. 4 to grant pensionary benefits to the petitioner. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed 2 as Assistant Teacher in Anwarul Uloom Urdu Primary School on 1/9/1957 and was serving as Assistant Teacher till 14/12/1970. According to the petitioner, he was promoted as Head Master on 15/12/1970 and had served till 1/1/1976 i.e. the period of 19 years 3 months. According to the petitioner, the school was granted Govt. approval on 13/7/1961 and was also receiving the recognition and grant in aid as per the Govt. Resolution dated 7/9/1977. According to the petitioner, the permission for running the said school was not renewed in the year 1976-77 on account of certain lapses on the part of the Management. According to the petitioner, though the petitioner made representation for grant of permission to re-open the said school, same was not granted . The petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 3372 of 1997, which was disposed off on the assurance of respondent no. 4 therein that the question of grant of pension is under consideration of respondent no. 4. 3. Ms. Mahajan, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has continuously worked for 19 years and 3 months. Not only that, the petitioner was willing to re-open the school and had the permission been granted, he would have re-opened the school and petitioner would have continued till the age of 58 years. The claim of the petitioner is rejected by the respondents on the ground that respondent no. 4 has found that the petitioner had failed to produce any document to show 3 that the petitioner’s services were approved or that the petitioner’s school was at any point of time was on grant – in – aid basis. The another ground for rejection is that the petitioner did not retire from the Govt. service at the age of 58 years. 4. The contention of the respondents that the petitioner is not in a position to produce the document to show that his services were approved and there is no document whether the school was working, was recognized school, are without any substance. Perusal of the communication dated 6/12/1976 issued by the Education Officer would itself reveal that on account of non compliance of certain directions, vide resolution dated 18/11/1976, it was decided to refuse renewal to the said school, from the academic year 1976-77. The said communication specifically states that the said decision was taken on account of violation of the provisions of the Primary Grants Code. Not only this, the letter dated 29/3/1978 issued by the Education Officer would reveal that since the school in question was closed from the academic year 1976-77, the cases for Provident Fund of the 4 employees including the petitioner, were sanctioned. The communication dated 1/6/1977 would also reveal that the Education Officer had informed the Block Development Officer that the arrangements for payment of salary of the sanctioned teachers working in the said school have been made and the said teachers should be directed to be remained present. It thus 4 appears to be the position that the petitioner was serving in the said school, which was on grant-in-aid basis till 1976-77. If the date of appointment of the petitioner is accepted as 1/9/1957, then on the date on which the said school was closed, he would have completed 19 years 3 months service. Since the said school was closed not on account of the fault of the teachers, but on account of lapses of the management, the petitioner was also entitled for absorption. Had the petitioner been absorbed in some other school, he would have continued in the service till the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years. 5. In so far as the reliance placed by the Dy. Director on paragraph 9.4 of the Scheduled F of the Bombay Education Act, 1949, the same would also be without substance in as much as the said pertains to the termination of the employees on account of reduction in the number of classes. 6. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to allow the petition. The impugned order dated 4/6/1998 is quashed and set aside. 7. Even according to the petitioner, the school was recognized in the year 1961. As such, the petitioner’s entry into service for pensionary purpose, would be considered as 13/7/1961 and on the basis of the said date, his pensionary benefits will be worked out treating him as employee 5 till the superannuation i.e. 58 years. 8. The necessary papers be submitted to the Dy. Director of Education within the period of 3 months from today. On the papers being submitted, the Dy. Director of Education shall do the necessary, in accordance with law, within a period of 3 months thereafter. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA ] [ B.R. GAVAI ] JUDGE JUDGE knp/WP 660.99