IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND SECOND SECOND APPEAL NO.256 OF 2007. APPEAL NO.256 OF 2007. APPEAL NO.256 OF 2007. The State of Maharashtra ...Appellant Versus Sau Mala Rajaram Paithankar & Ors. ...Respondents Shri B.H.Mehta, A.G.P for the Appellant. Shri V.Talkute for the Respondent Nos.1A, 1B and 1C. Shri L.S.Deshmukh h/f Shri S.S.Pakale for the Respondent No.2. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 07th January, 2008. : 07th January, 2008. : 07th January, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties were heard on the last date. With a view to appreciate the submissions made by the learned A.G.P appearing for the appellants, it will be necessary to refer to facts of the case in brief. The first respondent herein is the plaintiff. The first respondent was employed as a teacher with Mudhoji Primary School, Phaltan. She was promoted as the head mistress of the said school. She served in the said school from 01st June, 1953 to 16th June, 1991 and she retired from service with effect from 17th June, 1991. 2. On the date of her retirement, the said school was not a government aided school. The government aid was sanctioned to the said school from the year 1994-95. As on the date of her retirement, the school was not an aided school, pension was not granted to the first ... 2 ... respondent. The first respondent applied for pension which was denied to her. The denial was communicated to the first respondent by letter dated 10th January, 2001 issued by the Deputy Director of Education, Kolhapur. The said communication recorded that as on the date of retirement, the school was not a government aided school, hence the first respondent was disentitled to pension. Therefore, a suit was filed by the respondents for claiming pensionary benefits. 3. The suit was contested by the defendants by raising various contentions. The trial Court decreed the suit by holding that the first respondent was entitled to receive pensionary benefits from 29th August, 1994 i.e from the date on which the school received grant-in-aid from the State Government. The trial Court directed that the first respondent will be entitled to recover the pension from the aforesaid date. An appeal was preferred by the present appellants (the Collector and Deputy Director of Education, Kolhapur). The appeal has been dismissed by the District Court. The present Second Appeal takes an exception to the said judgments and decrees. 4. Various contentions have been raised by the learned A.G.P. The first contention is that when the first respondent retired from service, pensionary benefits could not have been granted to the teachers of ... 3 ... the school in dispute as the same was not receiving grant-in-aid. Submission of the learned A.G.P is that firstly that the Government Resolution dated 14th February, 1980 was not applicable to the teachers of a non-aided school and secondly a teacher who has retired prior to the date on which school was granted government aid cannot be given pension on the basis of the Government Resolution dated 14th February, 1980. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions. It is not in dispute that with effect from 29th August, 1994 government aid was made available to the school of which the first respondent was employee. The Courts below have relied upon the Government Resolution dated 14th February, 1980 which provides that the pension scheme will be applicable to a private primary school which is recognised and which is receiving grant-in-aid. The Courts below and in particular the Appellate Court has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Shaila D. Varerkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another dated 18th December, 1988 in OOCJ Writ Petition No.2186 of 1988. The Division Bench considered a case of a member of a non-teaching staff of a college who retired on 17th January, 1987. The Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 were made applicable to the category of said employee with effect from 01st April, 1995. The pensionary benefits were denied to the petitioner in the said Writ Petition on the ground that ... 4 ... the pensionary benefits became applicable with effect from 01st April, 1995 and therefore, the petitioner will be not entitled to pensionary benefits as she had superannuated before 01st April, 2005. 6. This Court after considering the decision of another Division Bench of this Court as well as the decision of the Apex Court in the case of D.S.Nakara and others Vs. Union of India and others (AIR 1983 Supreme Court 130) held that the petitioner will be entitled to pensionary benefits. However, the pensionary benefits will be payable only with effect from 01st April, 1995 i.e. the day on which the Pension Rules were made applicable to the category of the petitioner. 7. Following the decision of the Division Bench, in the present case the trial Court decreed the suit by holding that the first respondent will be entitled to receive pensionary benefits from 29th August, 1994 in terms of the aforesaid Government Resolution as from the said date, the concerned school received grant-in-aid. 8. In view of the decision of the Division Bench referred to above, no fault can be found with the decree passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court. No substantial question of law arises. Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. ... 5 ... JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE