The court rejected the teacher's contention that she be given pension as she was exclusively in the service of the municipal colleges as a part time teacher and that during her career spanning 24 years she did not take up any other job.
"In our opinion, the submission advanced by the petitioner cannot be accepted...Merely because the petitioner, in the remaining time available to her, did not take up any other work or occupation, it cannot mean that she was full time working with the college of municipal corporation," said Justices V M Kanade and R P Sondurbaldota.
Besides, as has been held by the apex court, in the absence of specific provision in the rules for grant of pension benefits, this court cannot issue a writ directing the respondents to grant pension benefits to the petitioner contrary to the statutory rules, the judges ruled recently.
During the total period of 24 years of her service as "part time teacher," for a period of six months, she had worked on adhoc basis in leave vacancy as "full time teacher."
While in service, she had applied for the post of a full time teacher, but could not get the job for want of existence of such a post. Thus, she continued as a part time teacher throughout.