‘Total lack of sensitivity’: Why Bombay High Court wants education official’s removal

A retired teacher was seeking Old Pension Scheme benefits under Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, counting her part-time service from June 1992 to June 2010 towards her qualifying service for pension, which is 30 years.

Terming it “sheer harassment” of a retired senior citizen, the Bombay High Court has directed state authorities to grant a former teacher her dues under the Old Pension Scheme. The court criticised the incumbent Pune Deputy Director of Education, Ganpat More, for a total “lack of sensitivity” in withholding her benefits and asked the Maharashtra government to replace him.

The court was acting on a plea by the teacher, Premlata Gore, who sought Old Pension Scheme benefits under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, counting her part-time service from June 1992 to June 2010 towards her qualifying service for pension, which is 30 years. She retired in January 2022, after around 30 years of service.

Coming down heavily on the Pune Deputy Director of Education, Ganpat More, a bench of Justices G S Kulkarni and Neela Gokhale said, “We have repeatedly come across cases where the officer has acted in complete defiance of law, thereby causing serious prejudice to teachers who are consequently required to knock on the doors of this court. We accordingly direct the Secretary, School Education and Sports Department, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, to withdraw the charge of Deputy Director of Pune Region, Pune, from Mr Ganpat More.”

“This is sheer harassment of the petitioner, who is a retired employee and a senior citizen. We find that there is a total lack of sensitivity of the incumbent officer, Mr Ganpat More, in dealing with issues concerning pension and the cases of senior citizens, not only in the present case but also as noted by us in the other cases. The duty of the incumbent officer was certainly to act with sensitivity, empathy and compassion,” the court observed. The court went on to flag “high-handedness, arbitrariness, and a total lack of public commitment” on the part of the officer.

The ruling added, “We direct the State Government to immediately appoint a competent officer to discharge the duties of the post of Deputy Director of Education, Pune Region, Pune, in place of Mr. Ganpat More.”

The court found the Deputy Director of Education’s October 30, 2025 order “wholly mechanical”, arbitrary and high-handed, observing that it failed to address the issue the court had specifically directed the authority to consider in its earlier order.

‘Officer’s action is gross’

Noting that this is not the first case, the bench said that we have repeatedly come across cases where such arbitrary orders have been passed by the said incumbent and, consequently, withdrawn.

While concluding the judgment, the court expressed its displeasure at the conduct of the official and said, “The actions of the incumbent Deputy Director of Education, Mr Ganpat More, which, in our opinion, are quite gross and reflect brazen illegality. It cannot be that he is unaware of the principles of law and the applicable rules, particularly when he is discharging public duties in the important post of Deputy Director.”

The order continued that he has abused the authority and powers vested in him, causing the employees of schools like the petitioner to approach the courts and litigate.

“We are of the clear opinion that a public servant who has shown utter disregard for the rule of law, for the orders passed by this court, and who has no sensitivity and conscience in dealing with the pension issues of senior citizens, as also who has caused such unwarranted harassment to the citizens, in our opinion, cannot be said to be a fit person to discharge public duties on such important post,” it stated.

Premlata Suresh Gore, a retired lecturer from Abasaheb Garware College in Pune, was appointed as a part-time teacher on an aided post on June 20, 1992. She continued in that capacity until June 30, 2010, before being appointed as a full-time lecturer on a fully aided post from July 1, 2010. She superannuated on January 31, 2022, after around 30 years of service.

After her retirement, she sought pension under Maharashtra’s Old Pension Scheme. However, the Deputy Director of Education rejected her claim, reasoning that her full-time appointment began only in 2010, after the November 1, 2005 cut-off date for the Old Pension Scheme.

She had earlier approached the high court, which in July 2025 directed the authorities to reconsider her case in light of a full bench ruling concerning pensionary benefits of employees of aided educational institutions.

Despite this direction, the deputy director again rejected her claim on October 30, 2025, maintaining that she was governed by the Defined Contribution Pension Scheme/NPS because her full-time appointment was after the cut-off date.

The petitioner then filed the present petition. Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Kumud Bhatia argued that her part-time service from 1992 to 2010 on an aided post had to be counted for determining her qualifying service for pension.