WP720.25.odt 1/17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

WRIT PETITION NO. 720 OF 2025

1.Nasirullah S/o Pirmohammad

Pathan (Senior Citizen)

Aged about 77 yrs, Occ. Advocate,

R/o 403, Pushpkamal Apartment,

Nandanwan Main Road, Opp.

Jaiswal School, Nehru Nagar,

Nagpur.

... PETITIONER

...VERSUS…

1. State of Maharashtra,

Hour Secretary of Educational

Minister (School & Krida,

Madhyamik), Madam Kama Road,

Hutatma Rajguru Chowk,

Mantralaya, Mumbai-400032,

through Chief Secretary,

Education Minister (School & Krida,

Madhyamik)

2.Accountant General,

Maharashtra (Account and

Establishment) II, Nagpur -440001,

Through Chief Account Officer,

Account Officer/PR-9 Civil Lines,

Nagpur.

3.Nagpur Zilla Parishad, Nagpur,

Through Chief Executive Officer,

Education Officer, Zilla Parishad,

Nagpur, Civil Lines, Nagpur.

Shubham 2026:BHC-NAG:5206-DB

WP720.25.odt 2/17

4.Deputy Director of Education

Nagpur, Division Nagpur, Office

Dhantoli, Nagpur.

5.Education Minister (School & Krida,

Madhyamik) of State of

Maharashtra, through Deputy

Secretary, Madam Kama Road,

Hutatma Rajguru Chowk,

Mantralaya, Mumbai-400032.

6.Sevadal Shikshan Sanstha, Om

Nagar, Nagpur, through Head

Master of Vidarbha Buniyadi High

School, Omnagar, Nagpur.

...RESPONDENTS

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Petitioner in person.

Mr. N. R. Patil, AGP for respondent(s)/State.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM :SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR AND

NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.

RESERVED ON : 16

th

MARCH , 2026.

PRONOUNCED ON :

02

nd

APRIL , 2026.

JUDGMENT (PER : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.)

1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

Shubham

WP720.25.odt 3/17

2. The petition challenges the order dated 23.09.2019 passed by

the respondent no. 1, State of Maharashtra, thereby rejecting the

claim of the petitioner for grant of pension by placing reliance on

Section 45 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982

(for short “MCS Pension Rules 1982”).

3.The facts, as can be seen from the petition, are as under:-

a)The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Primary Teacher

in a school run by the respondent no. 6 on 15.07.1968. Thereafter,

he was promoted as an Assistant High School Teacher in another

school run by the same management on 01.07.1969 up to

30.07.1983. Thus, the petitioner served as an Assistant Teacher for

15 years and 15 days on a permanent sanctioned post.

b)Thereafter, he was charge-sheeted and a departmental

inquiry ensued against the petitioner on charges of misconduct. The

inquiry committee thereafter, on 23.07.1983, submitted an inquiry

report to the management, which was accepted by the management

on 27.07.1983. The management, i.e., the respondent no. 5 herein,

Shubham

WP720.25.odt 4/17

thereafter, by passing an order, terminated the services of the

petitioner w.e.f. 30.07.1983, the order being passed on 27.07.1983.

The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order of termination,

challenged the same before the School Tribunal by filing an appeal

as contemplated under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of

Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Act, 1977 (for short,“the

MEPS Act”). However, the said appeal was rejected by the School

Tribunal vide judgment dated 07.12.1984.

c)The petitioner further states that though his appeal before the

School Tribunal was dismissed, he was in continuous service from

15.07.1968 till 30.07.1983 and is therefore entitled to pension

benefits. He, therefore, made representations from time to time to

various authorities and more particularly the respondents. It is his

contention that the management sent a proposal of pension to the

Zilla Parishad on 31.12.2016 which in turn forwarded the said

proposal to the Accountant General (II), respondent no. 2.

However, thereafter the respondent no. 1, by placing reliance on

Section 45 of the MCS Pension Rules, 1982, has rejected the claim

Shubham

WP720.25.odt 5/17

of the petitioner. It is this order which is challenged in the present

petition on the various grounds as stated in the petition.

4. We have heard the petitioner in person, who has stated that

the reliance placed by the authority, i.e., the respondent no. 1, on

Rule 45 of the MCS Pension Rules, 1982, is entirely misconceived as

the said Rule is not applicable. It is his contention that the said Rule

would come into picture only when the employee is dismissed or

removed from service but would not be helpful in the case of the

petitioner as he was terminated from service. He further submits

that the respondent No. 1 has ignored the provision of Rule 30 and

its sub-clause while rejecting the proposal of pension and has

ignored the fact that there was permanent and continuous service of

more than 10 years entitling him to pension. He, therefore, prays

that the order of the respondent no. 1 is liable to be quashed and

set aside.

5.The Petitioner has relied on the judgment passed by the

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of U.P. Co-operative Federation Ltd.

v. Ram Singh Yadav and others reported in AIR 1998 Supreme

Shubham

WP720.25.odt 6/17

Court 413. He has also relied on the judgment in the case of

Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda v. Anita Nandrajog reported in

AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 1978.

6.Per contra, Mr. N. R. Patil, the learned AGP, appearing for the

respondent nos. 1 to 4, by taking us through the various rules,

submits that there is no difference under the scheme of the MEPS

Act between dismissal, removal, and termination of service and, in

fact, the petitioner was removed from service. He relies on the

judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.

3468 of 2024, Nalini W/o Nathhuji Shende v. State of Maharashtra

and others to buttress his submissions. He, therefore, supports the

impugned order. Paragraph nos. 22 and 23 are reproduced as

under:-

“22.Rule 31 of the MEPS Rules does not use the

expression “dismissal”. The expression employed is

“termination”. The statutory scheme is that the maximum

punishment which can be imposed on an employee, who is

held guilty of serious misconduct including misconduct

involving moral turpitude, is termination. In the context of the

statutory scheme of the MEPS Rules, no distinction can be

Shubham

WP720.25.odt 7/17

drawn between termination and dismissal or removal of

service, if an employee is held guilty of serious misconduct.

23. Dismissal is perceived as termination of employment

by an employer against the will of the employee in

contradistinction with the voluntary leaving or quitting of

employment. In the context of the MEPS Rules, the expressions

“removal” and “termination” (dismissal) may be used in the

punitive order with same significance and effect. No

distinction can be drawn between “termination” on proved

charge of serious misconduct and dismissal from service. We

are not persuaded to accept the submission of Mr. Akhilesh

Potnis that the punishment of “dismissal” is not envisaged, and

as a sequitur, the dismissal of the petitioner must be construed

as plain and simple termination which has the effect of

snapping the employer-employee relationship.”

7.We have considered the contentions canvassed by the parties

and also gone through the record with their able assistance. The

fact that the petitioner was working as an Assistant Teacher in the

schools of the respondent no. 4 for 15 years and 15 days is not in

dispute. It is also not a matter of dispute that his services came to

an end after a regular departmental inquiry was held against him

for misconduct. It can also be seen that the challenge to the said

removal from service proved unsuccessful since the appeal before

the School Tribunal was rejected. It is also a matter of record that

Shubham

WP720.25.odt 8/17

the judgment of the School Tribunal has attained finality in as much

as the petitioner did not choose to challenge the same further. As

can be seen from these facts, the appeal challenging termination

was rejected on 07.12.1984. As can further be seen from the

averments in the petition, that after a huge delay, the petitioner

chose to agitate the issue of pension being applicable to him. The

first representation for claiming pension seems to be made in the

year 2016, i.e., more than 30 years from the dismissal of the appeal

before the School Tribunal. The Petitioner nowhere spells out any

cause for delay. Thus, in our view, the petition suffers from

inordinate delay.

8.Furthermore, on perusal of the impugned order removing the

petitioner from service, it would reveal that the said order was

passed in pursuance of the resolution of the management, which

accepted the findings of the inquiry officer. It is the contention of

the petitioner that the said order is of termination, while the

respondents contend that this is a removal from service.

Shubham

WP720.25.odt 9/17

9.Rule 45 of the MCS Pension Rules, 1982, would be relevant,

which is reproduced as under:-

“45.Forfeiture of service on dismissal or removal.

Dismissal or removal of a Government servant from a service

or post entails forfeiture of his past service.”

10.This Court had an occasion to consider the controversy in the

backdrop of the scheme of the MEPS Act and Rules, 1981. The said

judgment is passed in Writ Petition No. 3468 of 2022 referred to

supra, on which support has been placed by the learned AGP. In the

said judgment, by taking into consideration the entire scheme of the

MEPS Act and Rules, this Court held that in the context of the

statutory scheme of the MEPS Act and Rules, no distinction can be

drawn between termination and dismissal or removal from service if

an employee is held guilty of serious misconduct. We entirely agree

with the view taken by the coordinate Bench of this Court.

11.Furthermore, dismissal is perceived as termination of

employment by an employer against the will of the employee in

Shubham

WP720.25.odt 10/17

contradistinction to the voluntary leaving of employment. In the

context of the MEPS Act and Rules, the expressions “removal” and

“termination” (dismissal) may be used in a punitive order with the

same significance and effect. No distinction can be drawn between

“termination” on a proved charge of serious misconduct and

dismissal from service. Furthermore, Rule 45 of the MCS Pension

Rules, 1982, cannot be read in isolation and has to be read in

conjunction with the other Rules and more particularly Rule 19, 26,

27, and 101, which are reproduced:-

“19.Removal or compulsory retirement from service for

misconduct, insolvency or inefficiency.

A competent authority may remove any Government

servant subject to these rules from Government service, or may

require him to retire from it, on the ground of misconduct,

insolvency or inefficiency:

Provided that before any such order is issued, the

procedure referred to in rules 8 to 15 of the

Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal)

Rules, 1979, shall be followed.

Note 1 - In the case of police Officers of Subordinate ranks a

competent authority in the Police Department can

exercise his discretion under this rule after observing

the procedure laid down in Chapter XIII of the

Bombay Police Manual,

1959, Volume I and Section 26 of the Bombay Police

Act, 1961.

Shubham

WP720.25.odt 11/17

Note 2- Except where it is expressly stated otherwise,

‘removal’ includes the case of a government servant

who has been asked to retire under this rule.”

“26.Pension subject to good conduct.

(1)Future good conduct shall be an implied condition of

every grant of [pension or family pension].

Government may, by order in writing, withhold or

withdraw a [pension or family pension] or part

thereof, whether permanently or for a specified

period, if the [pensioner or family pensioner] is

convicted of a serious crime or is found guilty of

grave misconduct:

Provided that where a part of [pension or family

pension] is withheld or withdrawn the amount of

remaining ¹[pension or family pension] shall not be

reduced below the minimum [pension or family

pension] as fixed by Government.

(2) Where a [pensioner or family pensioner] is convicted

of a serious crime by a court of law, action under

sub-rule (1) shall be taken in the light of the

judgment of the court relating to such conviction.

(3)In a case not falling under sub-rule (2), if

Government considers that the pensioner is prima

facia guilty of grave misconduct, it shall, before

passing an order under sub-rule (1), follow the

procedure as laid down in rules 8 and 9 of the

Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal)

Rules, 1979 for imposing a major penalty.

(4) The Maharashtra Public Service Commission shall be

consulted before an order under sub-rule (1) is

passed in respect of Officers holding posts within

their purview.”

Shubham

WP720.25.odt 12/17

“27.Right of Government to withhold or withdraw pension.

(1) [Appointing Authority may], by order in writing,

withhold or withdraw a pension or any part of it

whether permanently or for a specified period,

and also order the recovery, from such pension,

the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to

Government, if, in any departmental or judicial

proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave

misconduct or negligence during the period of his

service including service rendered upon re-

employment after retirement:

Provided that the Maharashtra Public Service

Commission shall be consulted before any final

orders are passed in respect of officers holding

posts within their purview:

Provided further that where a part of pension is

withheld or withdrawn, the amount of remaining

pension shall not be reduced below the minimum

fixed by Government.

(2) (a) The departmental proceedings referred to in sub-

rule (1), if instituted while the Government

servant was in service whether before his

retirement or during his re-employment, shall,

after the final retirement of the Government

Servant, be deemed to be proceedings under this

rule and shall be continued and concluded by the

authority by which they were commenced in the

same manner as if the Government servant had

continued in service.

(b) The departmental proceedings, if not instituted

while the Government servant was in service,

Shubham

WP720.25.odt 13/17

whether before his retirement or during his re-

employment,-

(i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of

[Appointing Authority],

(ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took

place more than four years before such institution,

and

(iii) shall be conducted by such authority and at

such place as the Government may direct and in

accordance with the procedure applicable to the

departmental proceedings in which an order of

dismissal from service could be made in relation

to the Government servant during his service.

(3) No judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the

Government servant was in service, whether

before his retirement or during his re-

employment, shall be instituted in respect of a

cause of action which arose or in respect of and

event which took place, more than four years

before such institution.

(4) In the case of a Government servant who has

retired on attaining the age of superannuation or

otherwise and against whom any departmental or

judicial proceedings are instituted or where

departmental proceedings are continued under

sub-rule (2), a provisional pension as provided in

rule 130 shall be sanctioned.

(5) Where Government decides not to withhold or

withdraw pension but orders recovery of

pecuniary loss from pension, the recovery shall

not, subject to the provision of sub-rule (1) of this

rule, ordinarily be made at a rate exceeding one-

Shubham

WP720.25.odt 14/17

third of the pension admissible on the date of

retirement of a Government servant.

(6)For the purpose of this rule, -

(a) departmental proceedings shall be deemed to

be instituted on the date on which the statement

of charges is issued to the Government servant or

pensioner, or if the Government servant has been

placed under suspension from an earlier date, on

such date; and

(b) judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be

instituted -

(i) in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date

on which the complaint or report of a police

officer, of which the Magistrate takes cognizance

is made, and

(ii) in the case of civil proceedings, on the date of

presenting the plaint in the Court.”

“101.Grant of Compassionate Pension in deserving cases by

Government.

(1) A Government servant who is removed from service

shall forfeit his pension and gratuity:

Provided that if the case is deserving of special

consideration, Government may sanction a

Compassionate Pension not exceeding two-thirds of

pension or gratuity or both which would have been

admissible to him if he had retired on compensation

pension.

(2) A compassionate pension sanctioned under the

proviso to sub-rule (1) shall not be less than the

minimum pension as fixed by Government.

Shubham

WP720.25.odt 15/17

(3) A dismissed Government servant is not eligible for

Compassionate Pension.”

12.Rule 29 and 31 of the MEPS Rules would also be relevant,

which are reproduced as under:-

“29.Sharing of pension between Consolidated Fund and

Local Fund.

When part of the pensionable service of a Government

servant qualifies for pension from the Consolidated Fund

and part form a Local Fund the amount of his pension

shall be chargeable to Government and the Local Fund in

proportion of the length of service. If the share of pension

chargeable to one account does not exceed one rupee, no

charge shall be made to that account and the share shall

be borne by the account chargeable with the greatest

share.

Note - Service for which pension contribution has been

recovered or for which the recovery of pension

contribution has been waived should be regarded as

service paid by government for purpose of this rule.”

“31.Conditions subject to which service qualifies.

(1) The service of a Government servant shall not

qualify unless his duties and pay are regulated by

the Government or under conditions determined by

the Government.

(2) For the purposes of sub-rule (1), the expression

‘service’ means service under Government and paid

by Government from the Consolidated Fund of State

or a Local Fund administered by Government but

does not include service in a non-pensionable

Shubham

WP720.25.odt 16/17

establishment unless such service is treated as

qualifying service by Government.

(3) In the case of a Government servant belonging to the

Central Government, who is permanently transferred

to a service or post to which these rules apply, the

continuous service rendered under the Central

Government in an officiating or temporary capacity,

if any, followed without interruption by substantive

appointment, or the continuous service rendered

under that Government in an officiating or

temporary capacity, as the case may be, shall

qualify:

Provided that nothing contained in this sub-rule

shall apply to any such Government servant who is

appointed otherwise than by deputation to a service

or post to which these rules apply.”

13.Thus, a conjoint reading of all these rules would lead to a

conclusion that only because the petitioner has completed

qualifying service, would not ipso facto entitle him for pension.

14.The reliance placed by the petitioner on the judgment of U.P.

Co-operative Federation (supra) turns on the facts of the case since

in the said matter there was no departmental inquiry. Furthermore,

the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Regional Manager,

Bank of Baroda (supra) had entirely different facts and is in the

light of the service Rules applicable to the concerned employee.

Thus, when there is an authoritative announcement in the backdrop

Shubham

WP720.25.odt 17/17

of the MEPS Act and Rules, which admittedly would govern the

present situation, there is no need to go to the other judgments

which differ in factual context.

15.In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion

that the petition, apart from it being highly belated, lacks merits

and deserves dismissal.

16.The Writ Petition is rejected with no order as to costs.

17.Rule stands discharged.

(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) (SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)

Shubham