http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  18 of 2008

PETITIONER: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS

RESPONDENT: SHUBHADA ANANT KARVE & ORS.  

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/01/2008

BENCH: P.P. NAOLEKAR & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT

O R D E R        (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 2635/05)

       Leave granted.         Respondent No.1 was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Paranjape-Motiwale  High School on 15.6.1970 where she continued upto 8.5.1984. Thereafter, the  respondent was on leave till 8.6.1986. She  resigned from her post on 9.6.1986  and  joined respondent No.3, Maharashstra Mitra Mandal Madhyamik Shala  on 10.6.1990 which is after four years. After rejoining service with Respondent  No.3,  she continued on the post upto her superannuation on 31st  December,2003.  Thus the total length of service rendered  on the post by  respondent No.1 was 13 years, 6 months and 20 days. The service was  pensionable. If the break period is added, then she would have been entitled to  additional pensionary benefits, and keeping this in view respondent moved an  application on 26.12.2003 for condonation of break in service.  The application  was rejected on 24.3.2004 by the authorised officer.  This decision of the officer  refusing condonation  of break in service, was challenged by respondent No.1  by filing Writ Petition No.4404 of 2004 before the High Court.  The High Court  has directed the State of Maharashtra to condone the break in service to  respondent from 9.6.1986 to 10.6.1990 and to refix the pension by taking into  consideration her total service from 15.6.1970 to 31.12.2003, and thereafter pay  the pensionary benefits to her accordingly. For giving the aforesaid direction,  the High Court has relied upon State Government  Resolution dated 12th  November,1976 as well as Government Notification dated 10.5.1989.    Learned counsel for the appellant-State has brought to our notice   Government  Resolution,  Education  and Social Welfare Department dated 4th  November,1968 whereunder for condoning the break in service, the period of  each break should not exceed six months and the total period of permissible 6  breaks should not exceed 2 years;  and Circular dated 10.5.1989 whereunder  total duration of breaks must not be more than 2 years. The High Court has  failed to notice this part of the GR and was impressed by the fact that the  power to condone the break in service, which vests with the authority,  should  have been exercised in favour of respondent No.1.  On the face of the Circular,  whererunder the power to condone the break in service  exceeding the period of  two years does not vest with the Government,  the High Court has committed  an error in issuing the aforesaid direction.  That being the case, the  appeal is  allowed  and the order passed by the High Court is set aside.