1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.318 OF 2000 Vasant Ramchandra Kachare .. Petitioner V/s Dy.Director of Education, Gr.Mumbai Region & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Mihir Desai for the Petitioner. Ms.S.M.Dandekar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 4. CORAM : D.K.DESHMUKH & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE : 17TH SEPTEMBER, 2009. P.C.: 1. The petitioner who is a retired teacher claims two reliefs. Firstly he claims that the service rendered by him in unaided schools before he joined the service with Holly Name High School, Mumbai on 10.6.1974 and from where he retired on 31.7.1992, should be taken into consideration while fixing his pension. Second claim is that he is entitled to the interest on the amount of arrears of pension paid to him from 1992 till 1998. 2. So far as first claim is concerned, the petitioner relied on the Government Resolution dated 4.11.1968 which frames the pension scheme. Petitioner has also relied on the Government Resolution 2 dated 14.2.1972, according to which, the service rendered by a teacher in unaided recognized schools can also be taken into consideration, subject to the said teacher depositing the amount of provident fund contribution paid by the management of the unaided schools, with the Government Treasury. According to the petitioner he is willing to deposit the amount of contribution as per the Government Resolution dated 14.2.1972 and therefore his services rendered in unaided recognized School till 1974 should be taken into consideration. 3. In the affidavit filed by the Respondents their stand is that the service rendered by the petitioner in unaided recognized schools was the service rendered on probation and not permanent service and therefore it cannot be taken into consideration. However the Respondents have filed a chart showing that if the stand of the Respondents is not accepted, the petitioner will have to deposit with the Government Treasury an amount of Rs.7469/-, in order that the service rendered by him in unaided recognized schools before 1974 is taken into consideration for fixing his pension. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for both sides. The reason given by the Respondents for not considering the service rendered by the petitioner in unaided non-Government Secondary Schools cannot be accepted looking to the provisions of clause 7 of the Government 3 Resolution dated 4.11.1968 which in clear terms lays down that in computing the length of qualifying service for pension under that scheme, all the previous service, whether temporary, officiating or permanent, either in one or more than one non-Government Secondary School, shall be taken into account. Therefore, assuming that the service of the petitioner in the other unaided recognized schools was probationary, then also it has to be taken into consideration. 5. In our opinion, as the petitioner is willing to comply with the terms of Government Resolution dated 14.2.1972 and deposit the amount of contribution, the Respondents cannot deny re-fixation of the pension of the petitioner after taking into consideration the service rendered by him in unaided recognized schools. 6. So far as the second claim of the petitioner for payment of interest on the amount of pension is concerned, in our opinion, the petitioner is not entitled to that relief because the Respondent had made an order holding that the petitioner is not entitled to receive any pension, that order was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition filed in this Court being the Writ Petition No.489 of 1997 and that writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 1.7.1997. The matter was remanded back to the authority and it is only after remand that the order was made by the authority holding that the petitioner is 4 entitled to receive the pension and it is only thereafter that the petitioner was paid pension. It is also an admitted position that the petitioner has been given pension from 1992. In our opinion, the petitioner will not be entitled to receive any interest on the amount of arrears of pension that he has received in 1998. 7. In the result, petition succeeds in part and is allowed. On the petitioner depositing the amount which is mentioned in Exhibit ‘1’ to the affidavit of Dilip Trayambak Govind, Deputy Education Inspector filed in this Court on 22.1.2007, the Respondents shall re-fix the pension of the petitioner after taking into consideration the service rendered by the petitioner in unaided recognized schools and aided schools before he joined the services of Holly Name High School on 10.6.1974. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated before us that he will deposit the amount within two weeks from today. In case the petitioner deposits the amount within two weeks from today, the Respondents shall re-fix the pension of the petitioner and make payment of current pension and the arrears, if any, pursuant to the re- fixation to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, in any case, within a period of six months from the date of deposit of the amount by the petitioner. 5 9. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Petition disposed of. No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J.) (R.G.KETKAR, J.)