University Law Officer Serves Continuously Since 1997 but State Refuses to Count 13 Years for Pension; Bombay High Court Restores Pay and Pension Benefits
Law Officer Moves to Government-Aided Senior Post Without Break in Service; Bombay High Court Says Earlier 13 Years Cannot Be Ignored for Pension
Facts
Dr. Parveen Parvez Sayyed, holding a Ph.D. in Law, had been serving Savitribai Phule Pune University for about 29 years—first as Law Officer from 9 June 1997, and thereafter as Senior Law Officer from 1 August 2010.
Her initial appointment as Law Officer was not an ad hoc or backdoor appointment. The University issued an advertisement and conducted a full selection process through a duly constituted Selection Committee that included representatives of the State Government and University. Her 1997 appointment order expressly provided that her service would be governed by the Maharashtra Universities Act, the Standard Code and applicable Government rules.
The important distinction was that although the post of Law Officer was funded by the University, it was governed by the applicable Standard Code.
In 2010, the University advertised the Government-sanctioned post of Senior Law Officer, carrying a Pay Band of ₹15,600–39,100 with Grade Pay of ₹6,600. The petitioner again underwent a regular selection process and was appointed to the post.
Her appointment order expressly described the Senior Law Officer position as a Government-approved post.
The Government Initially Recognised Her Earlier Service
An issue arose because the petitioner was 41 years, 9 months and 15 days old when she applied for the Senior Law Officer post, while the prescribed maximum age was 40.
The Director of Higher Education, however, recommended recognition of her 13 years’ earlier service as Law Officer and pointed out that the Standard Code exempted existing University employees from the upper-age restriction.
The State Government itself subsequently accepted that position. By communication dated 13 January 2016, it confirmed that the upper-age restriction did not apply because she was already an employee of the University.
Her pay fixation was thereafter approved on 25 January 2016, taking into account the pay she had drawn as Law Officer.
Government Reverses Its Position
Years later, by communication dated 23 June 2021, the State took the position that because her earlier Law Officer post had been funded entirely by the University rather than the State, that period could not be counted for:
pay protection; retirement benefits; and pensionary purposes.
This was followed by another communication dated 8 June 2022, stating that her earlier service could not be considered and pay protection could not be granted.
She challenged both communications under Article 226.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that her 1997 appointment was a regular public appointment following an advertisement, interview and duly constituted selection process.
She had rendered 13 years of continuous service as Law Officer before being selected as Senior Law Officer, without any break in her employment with the University.
Most importantly, the Government itself had relied upon her status as an existing University employee to relax the age restriction for the Senior Law Officer appointment.
She therefore argued that the State could not simultaneously recognise her earlier service for one purpose and completely disregard it for pay protection and pension.
Respondents’ Arguments
The State’s principal defence was based on the source of funding.
According to the Government, the Law Officer post from 1997 to 2010 was created from the University’s own Development Fund and imposed no financial liability upon the State. The Senior Law Officer post, on the other hand, was a Government-sanctioned and aided post.
The State contended that under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, qualifying service commenced only from 1 August 2010, when she assumed the Government-aided Senior Law Officer post.
It further argued that permitting employees of self-funded University posts to claim pensionary benefits from the State would create recurring financial liabilities and potentially open the door to similar claims by employees holding unaided or University-funded posts.
Analysis of the Law
The Court rejected the State’s approach to the petitioner’s service.
A crucial factor was that her earlier appointment was not irregular. Her employment was governed throughout by the Standard Code, and the conditions governing her service and pay were determined under the regulatory framework applicable to University employees.
The Court examined Rules 30, 31, 33, 38 and 57 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982.
In particular, it held that Rule 31 was relevant because the petitioner’s service conditions had throughout been regulated by conditions determined by the Government under the Standard Code, including the pay scale applicable to her Law Officer post.
The mere fact that the salary for the earlier post came from University funds was therefore not treated as sufficient to erase that period of service for pension purposes.
Precedent Analysis
A significant precedent was the Full Bench judgment in Dilipkumar Bhagwan Deshmukh v. State of Maharashtra.
There, the issue concerned employees appointed before 1 November 2005 in institutions which were initially unaided or not receiving 100% grant-in-aid but subsequently became fully aided.
The High Court drew an analogy with the petitioner’s case: although her Law Officer post was initially not funded through State grant-in-aid, it remained a public post in the University, and she subsequently continued without interruption as Senior Law Officer on a fully State-aided post.
The Court considered the petitioner’s case to stand on an even stronger footing because she remained an employee of the same University throughout.
The judgment also relied on the settled Supreme Court principle flowing from D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, State of Kerala v. M. Padmanabhan Nair, and State of Jharkhand v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava that pension is not a bounty but a right earned through service, and pensionary entitlement constitutes property protected by Article 300A.
NPS Contributions Do Not Defeat Her Pension Claim
Another significant finding concerned the National Pension Scheme (NPS).
The State argued that contributions had been made under NPS in respect of the petitioner.
The High Court held that this by itself could not defeat her statutory pension entitlement, particularly when she had not exercised any option choosing NPS or the contributory pension scheme.
The Court directed that if contributions had been deposited by the petitioner, University or State, those amounts would have to be refunded to the respective contributors with accrued interest.
It expressly applied the principle that there can be no estoppel against law.
Court’s Reasoning
The central factual feature was the continuity of employment:
Law Officer: 9 June 1997 to 31 July 2010
Senior Law Officer: 1 August 2010 onwards
There was no break in service.
The petitioner’s first appointment had been through a regular selection process; her service conditions were governed by the Standard Code; she was subsequently regularly selected to the Government-aided Senior Law Officer post; and the Government itself had earlier recognised her previous service while deciding her age eligibility and approving pay fixation.
In those circumstances, the Court held that the State could neither initiate recovery against her nor deny her pension by disregarding the earlier period of service.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition in terms of prayers (a) and (b).
Consequently:
- the communications dated 23 June 2021 and 8 June 2022 withdrawing the benefit of her previous service were set aside;
- the State could not recover salary already paid pursuant to the earlier pay protection;
- her previous service as Law Officer was required to be reckoned for pay protection;
- her continuous previous service was to be counted for pension and allied benefits; and
- NPS contributions, if made, were to be returned to the respective contributors with accrued interest.
Case Details
Case: Dr. Parveen Parvez Sayyed v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Court: Bombay High Court, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 9514 of 2022
Coram: Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale
Reserved: 11 August 2026
Pronounced: 21 September 2026
Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:38376-DB
Result: Petition allowed; pay protection restored, recovery barred, previous service from 1997 recognised for pensionary and allied benefits.
