Raju Kishanrao Pawar v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2074 OF 2020 Raju Kishanrao Pawar VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Others … WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4706 OF 2020 Jagannath Vitthalrao Shinde VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Others … WITH WRIT PETITION NO.10135 OF 2022 Vikram Vithoba Amte VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others ... WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5711 OF 2018 Kishor Tanaji Karande VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Others … WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3732 OF 2018 Tukaram Daulat Patil VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Others ….. 2 WP 4706-2020 + oth WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4043 OF 2008 Bhagwat Dalpatrao Dahiphale VERSUS The State Of Mah And Ors … WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4547 OF 2020 Anant Bhagwan Ambad VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Others … WITH WRIT PETITION NO.624 OF 2021 Sangita Mohan Hade Alias Sangita Asaram Aute VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Others … WITH WRIT PETITION NO.663 OF 2021 Mohan Annasaheb Hade VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Others … WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6996 OF 2021 Rashmi Atul Chapalgaonkar VERSUS State Of Maharashtra And Others … 3 WP 4706-2020 + oth WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8549 OF 2018 Rajeshwar Sitaram Khedkar VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Others ... WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5496 OF 2008 Khuraji Somaji Bhagat VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Ors … WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2102 OF 2020 Prabhakar Kashinath Kakde VERSUS State Of Maharashtra And Others ... WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2720 OF 2020 Usha Maroti Bande VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Others … WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2165 OF 2016 Apparao Dagdu Bansod VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Others … 4 WP 4706-2020 + oth WITH WRIT PETITION NO.9405 OF 2017 Shaikh Mustafa Jamal VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Others … WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1058 OF 2018 Deepak Gangadharrao Dalal VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Others … WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1080 OF 2018 Jagannath Kisanrao Deshmukh VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Others … WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4745 OF 2018 Madhukar Bapurao Renge VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Others … WITH WRIT PETITION NO.7092 OF 2019 Chandrakala Bhanudas Sathe And Another VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Others … 5 WP 4706-2020 + oth WITH WRIT PETITION NO.12510 OF 2019 Nirmala Subhash Jadhav Alias Nirmala Ramrao Thorat VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Others … WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2182 OF 2020 Fakira Devising Rathod VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Others ... WITH WRIT PETITION NO.7949 OF 2020 Nandita Pramod Kolhe VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Others … WITH WRIT PETITION NO.648 OF 2021 Smita Suresh Jangam Alias Smita Madhukar Aglawe VERSUS State Of Maharashtra And Others … WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2441 OF 2020 Suresh Sidu Sable VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Others … 6 WP 4706-2020 + oth WITH WRIT PETITION NO.9989 OF 2022 Pushpalata Motilal Sharma VERSUS State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others … WITH WRIT PETITION NO.10023 OF 2022 Deepak Bhausaheb Patil VERSUS State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others … WITH WRIT PETITION NO.10136 OF 2022 Ambadas Gyandeo Sabane VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others … WITH WRIT PETITION NO.10137 OF 2022 Dhananjay Babasaheb Chate VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others …
Legal Reasoning
Advocates for the respective sides, we find that the petitioners are wholly relying upon the Judicial pronouncements of this Court wherein the issues raised by all these petitioners, have been specifically dealt with. The Judgments on which the petitioners place reliance, are set out hereinunder :- (A) Order dated 28/01/2015, delivered at Nagpur, in Writ Petition No.6630 of 2013 (Kiran Keshavrao Girhe & Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Others), (B) Judgment dated 31/03/2015, delivered at Aurangabad, in Writ Petition No.2311/2013 (Satish Ganpatrao Patil & Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others), 10 WP 4706-2020 + oth (C) Judgment dated 11/03/2022, delivered at Aurangabad, in Writ Petition No.14935 of 2017 (Ganesh Narhar Chavan & Others vs. The State of Maharashtra & Others), (D) Judgment dated 06/05/2022, delivered at Aurangabad, in Writ Petition No.12902 of 2018 (Punjahari Baburao Dighe & Others vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others). 5. The learned AGP has put forth his brief written notes of submissions dated 01/10/2022, in support of the averments set out in the affidavit in reply, filed in Writ Petition No.2074 of 2020, to be
Arguments
Advocate for respective Petitioners : Mr. A. M. Gaikwad, Mr. S. S. Bora, Mr. A. G. Choudhari, Ms. Nayana Patil h/f Ms. Surekha Mahajan, Mr. H. D. Deshmukh, Mr. H. P. Jadhav, Mr. S. R. Barlinge, Mr. R. I. Wakade, Mr. Vivek Dhage and Mr. Sandip Rathod AGP for Respondents-State : Mr. S. G. Karlekar Advocate for Respondent (Nos.1 to 3 in WP 648/2021, No.4 in WP 7 WP 4706-2020 + oth 6996/2021, Nos.5 & 6 in WP 663/2021, and 624/2021) : Mr. P. P. Kothari Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 and 4 (in WP 7949/2020):Mr.S.R.Patil … CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND ARUN R. PEDNEKER, JJ. DATE : 01st October, 2022 PER COURT : 1. In all these matters, we have considered the extensive submissions of the learned Advocates for the respective sides from 02.30 p.m. on 30/09/2022 onwards and in the ‘Special Hearing’ that we have conducted today on a Saturday. 2. There is no dispute that there are three categories of employees before us. The first category consists of all those Part Time Librarians who have been appointed in schools prior to the Government Resolution (GR) dated 28/06/1994 wherein Clause 4 indicates the intention of the State to amend the Secondary School Code. These Part Time Librarians are now claiming benefits under the GR wherever the students strength in the school has grown beyond 1000. Category two consists of those Part Time Librarians who 8 WP 4706-2020 + oth claimed that their posts are upgraded from Part Time Librarians to Full Time Librarians in view of the GR dated 03/08/2006 which has been introduced in the light of the GR dated 28/06/1994 and the recommendations of the Director Education Mr. V. V. Chiplunkar Committee, with effect from 01/04/2006. Such upgradations were granted by the GR dated 03/08/2006 and all beneficiaries were to be treated as fresh appointments. The third category consists all such Part Time Librarians who joined as Part Time Librarians and retired in the same capacity, thereby dis-entitling them of all the pensionary benefits. 3. We have perused the GR dated 28/06/1994 and we deem it appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion hereunder :- ¼c½ xzaFkiky 1½ 1000 rs 1500 1 v/kZosG xzaFkiky 1½ 501 rs 1000 1 v/kZosG xzaFkiky 2½ 1500 is{kk tkLr 1 iw.kZosG xzaFkiky 2½ 1001 rs 1500 3½ 1501 rs 2000 4½ 2000 is{kk tkLr 1 iw.kZosG xzaFkiky 1 iw.kZosG xzaFkiky 1 v/kZosG xzaFkiky 1 xzaFkiky o 1 lgk¸ ;d xzaFkiky 2- ;k lq/kkfjr fud”kkuqlkj lu 1994&95 e/;s jkT;krhy ekU;rkizkIr v’kkldh; ek/;fed ‘kkGkalkBh f’k{kdsrj laoxkZrhy [kkyh uewn dsysyh fofo/k 9 WP 4706-2020 + oth vfrfjDr ins fuekZ.k d#u rh Hkj.;kl ‘kklu ekU;rk nsr vkgs % & v- dz- laoxZ inkaph la[;k 1 2 3 4 5 ofj”B fyihd iw.kZosG xzaFkiky v/kZosG xzaFkiky iz;ksx’kkGk lgk¸ ;d fuEuJs.kh ¼prqFkZJs.kh deZpkjh½ 1080 284 940 668 3600 6572 4. In the backdrop of the exhaustive submissions of the learned
Decision
treated as an affidavit in reply in all the writ petitions. For the sake of brevity, his written submissions are reproduced (verbatim) hereunder :- “1. The petitioners in all these petitions were appointed as part time librarians and were never appointed as full time librarians. 2. The Government Resolution dated 28.06.1994 was issued considering recommendation of the Chiplunkar Committee thereby creating and sanctioning additional non-teaching posts for academic year 1994-95 for private Secondary Schools. The said Government 11 WP 4706-2020 + oth Resolution issued on the basis of recommendation of Chiplunkar Committee, changed norms / criteria for admissibility of various non-teaching post, including post of part time librarian, full time librarian. 3. That, although by virtue of changed norms/ criteria vide G.R. dated 28.06.1994 additional posts of full time librarian became admissible; in absence of sanction to additional posts for various reasons including ban on recruitment for a considerable time, the additional posts of full time librarian although admissible were not filled in, except the specified number of posts sanctioned in said Government Resolution. 4. The State Government considering said situation issued Government Resolution dated 03.08.2006, by virtue of which the post of part time librarian on which employees like petitioners were working and who could not be upgraded for lack of sanctioned posts of full time librarian; was upgraded to treat such employees as full time librarians w.e.f. 01.04.2006. The said Government Resolution gave concession to the requirement of sanction to the post of full time librarian and adherence to selection process, with a rider that such appointment by up gradation would be considered as a fresh appointment and would not be considered as promotion. 12 WP 4706-2020 + oth 5. The petitioners having accepted such up gradation and by virtue of which, status as a full time librarian on the conditions as mentioned in Government Resolution dated 03.08.2006; the petitioners cannot now be permitted to approbate and reprobate to claim benefit in excess of their eligibility in terms of Government Resolution dated 03.08.2006. The petitioners have also acquiesced and waived their right to claim any benefits, by virtue of Government Resolution dated 28.06.1994, having accepted up gradation pursuant to Government Resolution dated 03.08.2006; although no such right of up gradation accrued in their favour. In such circumstances the claim of the petitioners considering their acquiescence followed by delay would be hit by latches. The petitioners have all claimed benefit under the earlier Government Resolution dated 28.06.1994 from the date their respective schools attained strength of 1000 students; only after claiming benefit of up gradation pursuant to Government Resolution dated 03.08.2006. Reliance is placed on judgment reported in (2022) 2 SCC 25 Union of India & Others Versus N. Murugesan & Others (paragraph nos. 20 to 27). 6. The earlier judgments and orders relied on by the 13 WP 4706-2020 + oth petitioners which granted up gradation to part time librarians like the petitioners to the post of full time librarians, did not consider the fact that, Government Resolution dated 28.06.1994 did not contemplate axiomatic sanction and up gradation to the post of full time librarian on attaining strength of 1000 students; but only prescribed changed norms/ criteria for admissibility of post of full time librarian and sanctioned a specified number of full time librarian posts for the said academic year 1994-95 only. And thus, up-gradation to part time librarians as full time librarians is granted in absence of sanctioned posts. Reliance is placed on judgment reported in (2021) AIR SC 4855 Union of India & Ors Versus Ilmo Devi & another and more particularly paragraph nos. 8.7 and 8.8, to contend that part time employees are not entitled to seek regularization in case they are not working on a sanctioned post. 7. The Government Resolution dated 28.06.1994 which is the basis to claim automatic up gradation from part time librarian to full time librarian, did not contemplate such up gradation and only provided for change in norms for admissibility of various non- teaching posts including post of full time librarian and sanctioned specified number of posts for that particular 14 WP 4706-2020 + oth academic year 1994-95. And it was only by virtue of Government Resolution dated 03.08.2006 that part time librarians like petitioners in absence of sanctioned posts and by waiver of requirement to adherence of selection process, were up graded to the post to the full time librarians sanctioned as a one-time measure. 8. The petitioners have approached this Hon'ble Court much after the judgment and orders of this Hon'ble Court granting relief in personam and as such petitioners would have to be treated as fence-sitters and the latches and acquiescence on their part would be a valid ground to reject their claim. Reliance is placed on judgment reported in 2015 (1) SCC 347 State of Uttarpradesh & Others Versus Arvindkumar Srivastava & Others and more particularly paragraph no. 23. 9. It is hereby submitted that, considering contrary view of this Hon'ble Court in writ petition no.2311/2013 and 6971/2018, it requires consideration for referring the issue for consideration of larger bench. This Hon'ble Court while deciding writ petition No.14935/2017 and Writ petition No.12902/2018 and connected matters, has considered contrary view of this Hon'ble court in Writ Petition 2311 of 2013 and has distinguished the same on facts . It is hereby humbly 15 WP 4706-2020 + oth submitted that considering prayer clause ''A" as noted in the Judgment in Writ Petition 2311 of 2013 the same may not be distinguishable. 10. It is hereby submitted that, as regards admissibility of pension by considering half of service rendered as part time librarian cannot be considered in light of rule 70.4 of Secondary School code which disentitles part time librarian for claiming pension. This Hon'ble Court has considered the said issue in its Judgment and order in Writ Petition 7933 of 2021 which is annexed to the affidavit in reply filed in Writ Petition 2074 of 2020 and connected Writ Petitions. 11. It is hereby submitted that the claim of petitioners as regards admissibility of post of full time librarian on student strength exceeding 1000, would have to be considered with respect to the strength of students as verified by the competent authority in the respective years and also by considering whether the appointment of petitioners even as part time were approved in the relevant years, in light of the fact that there was ban on recruitment for considerable period from 1996 to 2006. 12. It is therefore that, the claim of the petitioners seeking benefit and up gradation to the post of full time librarian any time prior to issuance of Government 16 WP 4706-2020 + oth Resolution dated 03.08.2006, in absence of sanctioned post of full time librarian and also in absence of appointment and approval as such; does not merit consideration.” 6. The learned AGP then relies upon the following Judgments :- (A) Union of India and Others vs. Ilmo Devi and Another, 2021 DGLS (SC) 594, (B) Union of India and Others vs. N. Murugesan and Others, (2022) 2 Supreme Court Cases 25, (C) State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors., 2014 DGLS (SC) 876. 7. We find that this Court has dealt with several cases of part- time librarians. In Satish Ganpatrao Patil (Supra), this Court had sustained Clause 3 and 4 of the GR dated 03/08/2006, which reads as under :- “3- iViMrkG.kh uqlkj fofgr iVla[;sph vV iw.kZ dj.kk&;k ‘kkGkae/khy mDr v/kZosG xzaFkikykapk lgkuqHkwrhiwoZd fopkj d#u iw.kZosG xzaFkiky Eg.kwu fu;qDrh djko;kph vlY;kus fofgr fud”k iw.kZ dj.kk&;k 924 ‘kkGkae/;s iw.kZosG xzaFkikykaph ins mUu;uk.ks uO;kus fuekZ.k dj.;kr ;sr vlY;kus ;k iw.kZosG xzaFkiky inkojhy fofgr vVh iw.kZ dj.kk&;k v/kZosG xzaFkikykaph iw.kZosG xzaFkiky Eg.kwu fu;qDrh gh uohu fu;qDrh vlsy] gh inksUurh ukgh- 17 WP 4706-2020 + oth 4- mDr inkojhy fu;qDrh gh uohu fu;qDrh 2 o”kkZP;k ifjfo{kk/khu dkyko/khlfgr vlY;kus xzaFkiky inklkBh vuqKs; osruJs.khP;k fdeku osru VII;koj laca/khr O;Drhph eG osruJs.khoj fu;qDrh gksbZy- lnj O;Drhus v/kZosG xzaFkiky Eg.kwu dsysyh fu;fer lsok uohu iw.kZosG inkojhy vkxkÅ osruok<hlkBh xzkº; vl.kkj ukgh-” 8. In Ganesh Narhar Chavan (Supra), a Coordinate Bench dealt with Satish Ganpatrao Patil (Supra) in paragraph No.15 as under :- “15. Insofar as the judgment of this Court in case of Satish Ganpatrao Patil supra relied upon by the learned AGP is concerned, a perusal of the prayers which were for consideration of this Court in judgment clearly indicates that the petitioners therein were Part Time Librarians and they contended that their case was governed by old pension scheme i.e. Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1982 as they came to be appointed prior to 1.11.2005. The facts before this Court in the said judgment and reliefs sought was totally different. In our view, the said judgment would not apply to the facts of these cases even remotely. The reliance placed by the learned AGP on the said judgment is totally misplaced.” 9. In Punjahari Baburao Dighe (Supra), this Court once again considered Satish Ganpatrao Patil (Supra), in paragraph No.56 18 WP 4706-2020 + oth as under :- “56. Insofar as the judgment of this Court in the case of Satish Ganpatrao Patil (supra) relied upon by the learned Additional Government Pleader is concerned, a perusal of the prayers made in the said writ petition with the judgment would clearly indicate that the Division Bench of this Court was considering alterate prayer for quashing and setting aside the word ‘fresh’ in the impugned Government Resolution dated 3 rd August 2006 by substituting or deleting the same and held that the petitioners therein were promoted from part time librarians to full time librarians. In that context, this Court held that the petitioners had accepted the benefits of the said Government Resolution dated 3rd August 2006 and had accepted without any protest. Large number of judgments delivered by this Court taking different view prior to the said judgment in case of Satish Ganpatrao Patil (supra) were not brought to the notice of this Court. Be that as it may, the facts in the case of Satish Ganpatrao Patil (supra) were totally different and are distinguishable on facts. The said judgment is already distinguished by Division Bench of this Court recently in case of Ganesh Narhar Chavan (supra) and would not advance case of the respondents. We are thus not required to refer the issue to Larger Bench.” 10. We are of the view that such cases of Part Time Librarians 19 WP 4706-2020 + oth claiming benefits of Full Time Librarians and pension, post retirement, have often come up before various Benches and the Principal Seat of this Court. There are several Judgments delivered and the consistent view is in terms of the V. V. Chiplunkar Committee’s report and the GR dated 28/06/1994 which was followed by the GR dated 03/08/2006, which is held to be not inconsistent with the provisions of the Secondary School Code. (See paragraph No.57 in Punjahari Baburao Dighe (Supra)). 11. In Kiran Keshavrao Girhe (Supra), the Nagpur Bench considered the effect of the GR dated 28/06/1994 in a brief order and granted the benefit of upgradation to the Full Time Post of Librarian. Similar is the view thereafter taken at the Nagpur Bench in Writ Petition No.1881 of 2012 (Ashok Chandrabhanji Chavan and eleven others vs. The State of Maharashtra and three others). This was followed by series of Judgments/orders delivered at Nagpur and at Aurangabad. 12. In Satish Ganpatrao Patil (supra), this Court upheld Clause 3 and 4 of the GR dated 03/08/2006 concluding that the Part Time Librarians, who got the benefit of the said GR on account of the 20 WP 4706-2020 + oth upgradation to the newly created Full Time Posts of Librarians, were exempted from competing with the public at large and were absorbed on the newly created Full Time Posts of Librarians. As a benefit of exempting them from competing with the public vide the procedure applicable to recruitment in public employment, the Government imposed the condition of wiping out their past Part Time Librarians service tenure. However, subsequently in Ganesh Narhar Chavan (Supra), this Court referred to Satish Ganpatrao Patil (Supra) and concluded that the issue in Satish Ganpatrao Patil (Supra) was altogether different. The learned AGP has strenuously canvassed on this specific issue that this Court has not properly considered Satish Ganpatrao Patil (Supra) in Ganesh Narhar Chavan (Supra) and, therefore, this Court should take a different view. The learned AGP then relies upon paragraph No.56 in Punjahari Baburao Dighe (Supra) to canvass the same contention by stating that the same Bench has decided Punjahari Baburao Dighe and hence, Ganesh Narhar Chavan was taken into account to hold that Satish Ganpatrao Patil was on “totally different” and distinguishable facts. 13. We find that the State of Maharashtra has neither challenged 21 WP 4706-2020 + oth Ganesh Narhar Chavan (Supra) nor Punjahari Baburao Dighe (Supra), before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, nor Review Petitions are filed. 14. The law must be settled at some point in time in a long journey of litigation involving hundreds of employees. Uncertainty cannot persist in the backdrop of a series of Judgments which have consistently taken a particular view. If the State is of the opinion that it’s contentions or the actual effect of Clause 3 and 4 of the GR dated 03/08/2006, has not been considered in Ganesh Narhar Chavan (Supra) and Punjahari Baburao Dighe (Supra) and that, the view taken in Satish Ganpatrao Patil (Supra) was binding in the above two cases, the remedy for the State Government lies either by taking those matters to the Hon’ble Supreme Court or by filing review petitions. Judicial discipline requires that a consistent view taken for a long period of time in similar set of facts, by co- ordinate Benches, should not normally be disturbed. Many of the petitioners who were before this Court in the earlier cases and in cases of Ganesh Narhar Chavan (Supra), Punjahari Baburao Dighe (Supra) etc. and in the present group of cases, have retired. Certain benefits have been granted to them by the earlier Judgments of this Court. Just because a different view is possible in 22 WP 4706-2020 + oth the backdrop of the submissions advanced for the first time by the learned AGP, reproduced herein above, would not mean that the benefits already granted to such petitioners, should be either withdrawn or should be again subjected to scrutiny. A ‘quietus’ after such a long journey of litigation, needs to be rendered in these matters. 15. In view of the above, the benefits granted to the petitioners in Ganesh Narhar Chavan (Supra) and in Punjahari Baburao Dighe (Supra), need to be granted in these matters as well. However, the prerogative of the State of Maharashtra in scrutinizing and verifying the facts in each case in the light of the Law pronounced by this Court in the earlier Judicial pronouncements, cannot be placed under an embargo and the authorities, therefore, have to be left at liberty to scrutinize and verify each case and, thereafter, grant benefits to them. In the event the State/authorities come to a conclusion that particular petitioners are not entitled for certain benefits, they are at liberty to pass reasoned orders in each of such cases and such orders shall be communicated to such petitioners within a period of 30 days from the date of the passing of the adverse orders so as to enable them to seek redressal of their grievance by availing such legal remedies as would be permissible in law. 23 WP 4706-2020 + oth 16. The learned AGP submits that the State would take a call as regards, either filing a review in Ganesh Narhar Chavan (Supra) and Punjahari Baburao Dighe (Supra) or assail the said Judgments before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 17. The learned Advocates for the petitioners have prayed for reckoning 50 % of the services rendered as Part Time Librarians while computing pensionable service on the basis of being Full time Librarians, akin to the relief granted by this Court in paragraph No.59 in Ganesh Narhar Chavan (Supra). The learned AGP submits that Clause 70.4 of the Secondary School Code would not permit grant of such relief and the State opposes the said prayer. This argument was not canvassed before the Court in Ganesh Narhar Chavan (Supra) on behalf of the State. 18. Clause 70.4 of the Secondary School Code reads as under :- “70.4 Part-time employees and those working in Night High Schools are not eligible either to the Provident Fund Scheme or to Pension Scheme.” 24 WP 4706-2020 + oth Rule 19 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Rules, 1981, reads as under :- “19. An employee of an aided secondary school and aided Junior College of Education working on full time basis and retiring on or after the 1st April 1966 and an employee of an aided primary school working on full time basis and retiring on or after the 1st April 1979 but who have opted for pension and the employee appointed on or after the above-mentioned respective dates shall be eligible for pension at the rates and in accordance with the rules as are sanctioned by Government specifically to the employees of private schools.” 19. Considering these provisions and the earlier directions of this Court in the above referred Judgments, we find that once a Part Time Librarian becomes a Full time Librarian, he qualifies for pension by taking into account his tenure of employment which would include Part Time employment to the extent of 50 % portion of the tenure. In these peculiar facts, we are inclined to accept the submission of the petitioners that such relief has already been granted to identically placed colleague employees of the petitioners and the State Government has neither filed a review petitioner nor have challenged the same before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 25 WP 4706-2020 + oth 20. It needs mention that our conclusion is based on the reliefs granted by the earlier Benches in the cases in Ganesh Narhar Chavan (Supra) and Punjahari Baburao Dighe (Supra). In the event, such a specific issue crops up in any proceeding, the same can be dealt with as regards the interpretation of the above reproduced provisions in the light of the Judgment. 21. In view of the above, these petitions are partly allowed in terms of the benefits granted in the operative part of the orders in Ganesh Narhar Chavan (Supra) and in Punjahari Baburao Dighe (Supra). We would add the following directions to the above :- (A) The State of Maharashtra would verify the case of each petitioner before us in the light of their service conditions and tenure of employment and upon confirming that they are entitled for the benefits in the light of the directions set out in Ganesh Narhar Chavan (Supra) and in Punjahari Baburao Dighe (Supra), would proceed to extend such benefits to them as expeditiously as possible and preferably on or before 31/03/2023. (B) In cases where the State of Maharashtra comes to a 26 WP 4706-2020 + oth conclusion that a particular petitioner is not entitled for the benefits, a reasoned order would be passed and the said order would be communicated to the concerned petitioner within a period of 30 days, on the last known address or on the address mentioned in the memo of the petition. (C) Such aggrieved petitioners would be at liberty to assail the said order by resorting to a remedy as is permissible in Law. (D) Akin to the orders passed by this Court at the Nagpur Bench and in Punjahari Baburao Dighe (Supra), none of these petitioners would be entitled for the arrears of difference of wages. (E) Since it has been granted in Ganesh Narhar Chavan (Supra) and in Punjahari Baburao Dighe (Supra), the State is required to compute 50 % of the service rendered as a Part Time Librarian along with the period of 100 % service rendered as full time Librarian, for the purposes of computing pensionable service. ( ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. ) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ) gawade/-.