Court holds that continuous service on a University-funded post governed by the Standard Code must count toward retirement benefits; recovery of alleged excess salary near retirement ruled impermissible.
The Bombay High Court has set aside the Maharashtra government’s decision to withdraw pay protection and deny pensionary benefits to Dr. Parveen Parvez Sayyed, a Senior Law Officer with Savitribai Phule Pune University, holding that her service as Law Officer from 1997 to 2010 could not be ignored merely because the post was created from University funds.
A Division Bench of Justices G.S. Kulkarni and Dr. Neela Gokhale ruled that the petitioner’s service was continuous, public in nature, and governed throughout by the Maharashtra Non-Agricultural Universities and Affiliated Colleges Standard Code, 1984. The Court found that her initial appointment as Law Officer was made through a regular selection process, under an advertisement, and with the participation of a State Government representative on the selection committee. The appointment order itself made her service subject to the Standard Code and Government rules.
The Court noted that when the petitioner was later selected as Senior Law Officer on a Government-approved aided post in 2010, the State had already treated her earlier service as relevant. This was evident from the age relaxation granted to her as an in-service University employee and from the pay fixation approval issued in 2016, which expressly took into account her earlier pay as Law Officer. Salary was thereafter paid for years through the State’s Sevarth system.
Rejecting the State’s later stand that the earlier post being funded by the University excluded it from pension calculations, the Court held that the University’s funds and staffing decisions remain within a statutory framework and State oversight. Merely because the post was financed from University funds did not make the service irrelevant for pay protection or retirement benefits.
The Bench also held that the proposed recovery of alleged excess salary was illegal. Since the petitioner had not misrepresented any facts or committed fraud, and the payment had continued for more than five years, recovery at the stage when she was nearing retirement would be harsh and arbitrary. The Court relied on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih and Jagdish Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar.
On pension, the Court reiterated that pension is not a bounty but a statutory and constitutional right, and that service qualifying for pension must be interpreted in light of the governing rules. It held that Rule 31 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 applied because the petitioner’s duties and pay were regulated by Government through the Standard Code. The Court also rejected the State’s argument that deductions under the National Pension Scheme barred her claim, observing that mere contributions under NPS cannot override statutory pension rights where no conscious option was exercised by the employee.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the impugned communications dated 23 June 2021 and 8 June 2022, allowed the petition, and directed that the petitioner’s previous service be counted for pay protection, pension, and allied retirement benefits. It further held that any amounts deposited under NPS would need to be refunded with accrued interest.
Bottom Line :
University service on a non-teaching post created from University Development Fund, but governed by the Standard Code and followed without break by appointment on a Government-aided post in the same University, is liable to be counted for pay protection and pensionary benefits; recovery of alleged excess salary after long years and near retirement is impermissible.
Statutory provision(s): Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, Section 8, Section 102, Section 103, Maharashtra Non-Agricultural Universities and Affiliated Colleges Standard Code (Terms and Conditions of Service of Non-Teaching Employees) Rules, 1984, Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, Rules 30, 31, 33, 38, 57, 100, 110, Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226
Dr. Parveen Parvez Sayyed v. State of Maharashtra, (Bombay)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2982682
