Bombay High Court: Subsequent Appointment Made After Termination Is A Fresh Appointment; Prior Service Not Calculated Towards Pension
The Bombay High Court dismissed a Petition filed by the Petitioner who sought the computation of his prior service for the purpose of determining his retiral benefits, including pension and gratuity.
Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge, Justice Ashwin D . Bhobe, Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court clarified that subsequent appointment made after termination is a fresh appointment, meaning that prior service is not calculated towards calculation of pension.
The Court dismissed a Petition filed by the Petitioner who sought the computation of his prior service for the purpose of determining his retiral benefits, including pension and gratuity.
A Division Bench of Justice Ravindra V Ghuge and Justice Ashwin D Bhobe noted, “The controversy revolves around the period from 01.08.1989 till 10.10.1997, which period according to the Petitioner is required to be considered for the purpose of qualifying service while computing the service benefits of the Petitioner.”
Senior Advocate Mihir Desai appeared for the Petitioner, while Advocate Rahul Nerlekar represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Bhavan's Somani College, Mumbai, on a temporary basis against a reserved vacancy in 1986. His services were later terminated by Respondent with effect from 1987. The Petitioner challenged this termination before the School Tribunal, Mumbai, which refused to interfere with the termination but directed the Respondents to pay him compensation.
The Petitioner then filed a Writ Petition before the High Court, which, through an Interim Order, directed the Respondents to appoint the Petitioner as an Assistant Teacher (Biology) with effect from 1989.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court noted, “Aforesaid facts sufficiently establish that the initial appointment of the Petitioner made on 12.07.1986 on temporary basis was against a reserved post, which appointment was terminated on the ground that the appointment of the Petitioner was not against a clear vacancy. Further, the request made by the Petitioner for re-instatement in view of the changed circumstances was turned down by this Court in Writ Petition No. 4377 of 1997. Services of the Petitioner which were procured w.e.f. 01.09.1989, were immediately terminated upon disposal of Writ Petition No. 4377 of 1997.”
The Court explained, “The said appointment made vide order dated 01.08.1989 cannot be construed to be an appointment made under orders of this Court. Even otherwise, services of the Petitioner were immediately terminated on disposal of Writ Petition No. 4377 of 1997.”
The Bench held, “Petitioner’s appointment prior to 03.03.1998 not being in accordance with law, as observed herein above, the contention of the Petitioner with regard to break in service for the period 10.10.1997 to 02.03.1998 would be inconsequential, more so, when the appointment of the Petitioner made on 03.03.1998 is a fresh appointment.”
Consequently, the Court ordered, “Impugned order has considered the relevant facts and we do not find an infirmity in the reasons given by the Under Secretary for holding the Petitioner being entitled to pension w.e.f. 03.03.1998 to 31.08.2017. Petition is devoid of merits.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Petition.
Cause Title: V.N. Madhu v. S.S. & L.S. Patkar-Varde College & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:6478-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Mihir Desai; Advocate Sanskruti Yagnik
Respondents: Advocate Rahul Nerlekar; AGP Jyoti Chavan
