“A Travesty Of Justice": Bombay High Court Directs Pune University To Count 13 Years Of Law Officer's Service For Pension; Quashes Recovery Order
The Court held that the State Government's approach in reversing a decade-old pay fixation approval was "certainly arbitrary", and it cannot resile from its own recognition of prior service.
The Bombay High Court has held that it would be a travesty of justice to deny a university employee recognition of her thirteen years of service on a post funded entirely from the university's own development fund, once the State Government itself had earlier taken that very service into account while fixing her pay on a subsequent government-aided post. The Court found that denying such recognition after the employee had drawn her salary on that basis for years, and now stood on the verge of retirement, could not be sustained.
The Court noted that the State Government's own reversal of its earlier approval, years after having relied upon it, was "certainly arbitrary," and that recovery of monies paid under a mistaken but long-standing pay fixation from an employee about to retire would be iniquitous and legally impermissible under settled Supreme Court precedent governing recovery from employees.
A Division Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Dr. Justice Neela Gokhale while allowing a writ petition filed by Dr. Parveen Parvez Sayyed, presently serving as Senior Law Officer with Savitribai Phule Pune University, against the State of Maharashtra and the University, observed, “…as the University has submitted its proposal for final approval of the staffing pattern and the State Government took substantial time to accord such approval, in the fact and circumstances of the present case, it would not only be untenable but also a travesty of justice if the petitioner’s valuable services rendered on the post of Law Officer for a substantial period from 9 June, 1997 to 31 July, 2010 are not recognized. This fact stands recognized by the State itself when it accorded approval to the petitioner’s appointment as Senior Law Officer by condoning the age bar of her being overage. In our opinion, the facts of the present case are peculiar…”.
“…The petitioner has served the University for a long period, initially as Law Officer from 9 June 1997 to 31 July, 2010 and thereafter as Senior Law Officer with effect from 1 August 2010 till date. Thus, she has rendered a total period of 29 years of service with the University, from 1997 till date. In such circumstances, it would be wholly unjust if the valuable service rendered by the petitioner exclusively in the service of the University for such a long period is not duly recognized to be counted for the purpose of pension”, the Bench further said.
Senior Advocate Mihir Desai appeared for the petitioner and D.S. Deshmukh, AGP appeared for the respondent.
In 1997, the petitioner was appointed as a Class-I Law Officer, funded through the University’s development fund following a standard selection process. In 2010, she was selected for the government-aided post of Senior Law Officer. Although initially flagged as overage, the State Government condoned the age limit in 2016, recognizing her as an existing employee and granting pay protection based on her previous salary.
In June 2021 and June 2022, the State reversed its decision. It ruled that her prior service on a University-funded post could not count toward pay protection or pension, and ordered the recovery of previously paid amounts. The petitioner challenged these orders in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The State argued that Section 8(2) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 separates University-funded posts from State-aided ones, and Rule 31 of the Pension Rules requires government-paid service for pension eligibility. The University supported the petitioner, arguing her service was governed by the State’s Standard Code and the State could not retract its prior approval.
The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that Section 8 maintains State control over University-funded posts and her service met Rule 31 requirements under the Standard Code.
Finally, the Court rejected the argument that enrolment in the National Pension Scheme (NPS) waived her pension rights. It held that NPS contributions do not act as an estoppel against statutory pension entitlements and ordered all deposited NPS funds to be refunded with accrued interest.
“We are also not inclined to accept the contention as urged on behalf of the State that merely because the petitioner was foisted with making contributions under National Pension Scheme, the petitioner would be required to be denied the legitimate entitlement of pension by discarding her continuous service to the University from 1997, in the absence of any option exercised by the petitioner opting for the NPS or the Contributory Pension Scheme. If any amounts were deposited by her in that regard and/or deposited by the University/State as part of the contribution, the same would be required to be refunded to the petitioner as also to the State Government/University along with accrued interest. This for the reason that such contribution would not in any manner be an estoppel against the petitioner’s statutory rights to receive pension as recognized by law, considering the principle that there cannot be any estoppel against law”, the Bench noted.
The Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the impugned communications dated 23 June 2021 and 8 June 2022, directing that the petitioner's service as Law Officer from 1997 to 2010 be counted towards her qualifying pensionable service, restraining recovery of salary already paid, and making the Rule absolute with no order as to costs.
Cause Title: Dr. Parveen Parvez Sayyed v State of Maharashtra and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:38376-DB)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Mihir Desai, Senior Advocate, Devyani Kulkarni, Sanskruti Yagnik, Advocates.
Respondent: D.S. Deshmukh, AGP, Rajendra Anbhule, Advocates.