JUDGMENT - A.A. DESAI, J.:---In this petition we have been called upon to examine the claim of a teacher for grant on attaining the age of superannuation. 2. The petitioner was a Matriculate. He, as an untrained teacher, since 8-7-1966 served in the school of respondent No. 2 society. On attaining the age of superannuation, i.e. 58, he on 30-4-1978 retired from the service. He made a claim for grant of pension. The respondent No. 2 society subsequently vide Resolution dated 22-4-1988 confirmed the petitioner, Respondent no. 1 by the impugned order dated 2-12-1988 informed that the petitioner was untrained and in view of the provision laid down under Rule 68.4 of the Secondary Schools Code (the Code), he could not be confirmed in the service. The pension, therefore, cannot be granted. 3. Mr. Deshpande, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, tried to urge for sometime that the petitioner held the post in clear and regular vacancy. Moreover, the society by the resolution has confirmed the petitioner in the service. The petitioner as such was holding a permanent post substantively. He was entitled to grant to pension. The impugned order of the Deputy Director dated 2-12-1988 denying the pension is erroneous and illegal. The petitioner was admittedly an untrained teacher throughout. He has not acquired any professional qualification for being a trained teacher. Rule 68.4 of the Code specifically provides that no untrained teacher be continued in service for a period of more than five years. Such teacher could be confirmed only after having obtained the necessary professional qualification. In view of the specific provision, the resolution adopted by the society was contrary and offending to the specific rule. The resolution was, therefore, illegal and thus inoperative and ineffective. The petitioner could not acquire the status of a permanent teacher on the strength of the said resolution. Moreover the respondent so treating the petitioners temporary granted him other benefits like gratuity etc. 4. Earlier, the recognised and aided secondary schools under private managements were the non pensionable establishments. Rule 70.1 of the Code has provided pension to every full-time employee who was in the employment as on 1-4-1966 as per rules prescribed by the Government. Annexure (34) to the Code has laid down a scheme in that behalf for the teaching staff. 4. Earlier, the recognised and aided secondary schools under private managements were the non pensionable establishments. Rule 70.1 of the Code has provided pension to every full-time employee who was in the employment as on 1-4-1966 as per rules prescribed by the Government. Annexure (34) to the Code has laid down a scheme in that behalf for the teaching staff. The scheme has provided that the pension shall be paid to the full-time teacher as admissible to the Government servants as per the Revised Pensions Rules, 1950, as contained in Appendix XIV-C of the Bombay Civil Services Rules. 5. The main submission of Mr. Deshpande is that the scheme is a self contained and complete Code in itself. It regulates the entitlement and other aspects of the matter. According to Mr. Deshpande, every full-time teacher as defined under clause (c) of II is entitled to pension provided he has completed minimum ten years service as laid down in the accompaniment framed under Rule 6 of he Revised Pension Rules, 1950. In the submission of Mr. Deshpande, nature of service, whether permanent-temporary or officiating is wholly irrelevant for the entitlement. Hence the impugned order is contrary to the scheme. 6. With the assistance of the learned Counsel we have gone through the various provisions laid down under the scheme. Clause 6 reads as thus : "The teachers who have complete more than two years of continuous post-training service, will be treated as holding permanent posts substantively for the purpose of this scheme." Clause (d) of II defines 'Post training service' means the service rendered by a teacher after having obtained any professional qualification. Rule 68.3(b) of the Code provides that a teacher who has completed two years post training service will be treated as permanent. It is thus implicit that a teacher must be a holder of a permanent post substantively for the purpose of the scheme. Merely by being a full-time teacher, one does not qualify for the entitlement. Incorporation of Clause 6 in the scheme runs counter to the submission as made by the learned Counsel. Mr. Deshpande could not explain any other purport of clause 6. According to us, the nature of service appears to be germane for grant of pension. 7. Merely by being a full-time teacher, one does not qualify for the entitlement. Incorporation of Clause 6 in the scheme runs counter to the submission as made by the learned Counsel. Mr. Deshpande could not explain any other purport of clause 6. According to us, the nature of service appears to be germane for grant of pension. 7. The general provisions of Chapter XI of the Bombay Civil Services Rules which deal with 'Pensions' of government servants, except where otherwise provided are made applicable to the scheme by virtue of clause 10 therein. Rule 230 defines a pensionable service, which reads as thus: "Unless in any case it be otherwise distinctly provided by or under these rules a Government servant is inpensionable service if he holds substantively a permant post in Government service or holds a lien on such a post, or if his lien on such post has been susupended under rule 19." Exception 2 of this rule regarding grant of terminal benefits to temporary Government servants are embodied in Appendix XIV-F. This also indicates that the Government servants who are temporary at the time of retirement are not eligible for grant of pension. 8. The argument of Mr. Deshpande is that the provisions of Chapter XI are applicable only to the extent consistent with those laid down in the scheme. As per Rule 70.1 of the Code and also under the scheme every full time teacher is entitled to a pension. Rule 230 of Chapter XI which deals with pensionable service, in the submission of Mr. Deshpande, is inconsistent and, therefore, not applicable to the Scheme. Submission is erroneous. As discussed as per Clause 6 a teacher who is substantive holder of permanent post is recognised for the purposes of the Scheme. It is crystally clear that any teacher merely by being full-time is not eligible for pension under the scheme. The Code or scheme has not defined "pensionable or qualifying" service of such full time teacher entitling to a grant of pension. We have to read the same by referring to Rule 230 of Chapter XI. The Rule is, therefore, complimentary to the provisions as contained in the scheme and not contradictory as tried to be urged. The term "Full-time teacher" as deployed in the Code and the Scheme is in a restricted sense and in contradistinction to part-time teacher. We have to read the same by referring to Rule 230 of Chapter XI. The Rule is, therefore, complimentary to the provisions as contained in the scheme and not contradictory as tried to be urged. The term "Full-time teacher" as deployed in the Code and the Scheme is in a restricted sense and in contradistinction to part-time teacher. Full-time teacher unlike part-time one is in Full time employment of the school. Rule 71.4 of the Code prohibits such teacher from seeking any gainful employment elsewhere without obtaining the prior permission. Rule 73 provides for the working hours of such teacher. However, it appears from Rule 76.2(ii) a part- time teacher is permitted to undertaken teaching in other school. Such part-time teacher is excluded from the benefit of the pension under the Code and the Scheme. Every full time teacher is, however, considered for the benefit only when services rendered by person are pensionable. 9. The Scheme does not prescribe minimum ten years of service for being eligible to grant of pension as advanced by Mr. Deshpande. Even otherwise the reliance of the learned Counsel on the annexure to Appendix XIV-C (Revised) Pension Rules, 1950 is wholly misconceived. It is merely chart as per Rule 6 therein, prepared for calculation of pension. It would be misconstruing to infer there form that ten years is a minimum service laid down for grant of pension. Clause 7 under the scheme refers that in computing the length of qualifying service for pension under the scheme, all previous service, subject to the condition as laid down, are to be taken into account. The scheme, however, does not define the 'qualifying service'. The submission of the learned Counsel that the scheme is self contained and complete Code in itself thus equally erroneous. Moreover, we could not find any definition of qualifying service either in Chapter XI of the B.C.S. Rules or the Pension Rules. The Bombay Civil Service Rules, which contained Rules on various subjects has been split up by framing self contained independent rules on various topics. The Maharashtra Civil Services (Pensions) Rules accordingly came into being. These rules brought into force with effect from 15th August, 1982. As such these Rule were not prevailing when the petitioner retired from service. However, reference is being made to these rules to ascertain the purport of the term 'qualifying service' for purpose of pension. The Maharashtra Civil Services (Pensions) Rules accordingly came into being. These rules brought into force with effect from 15th August, 1982. As such these Rule were not prevailing when the petitioner retired from service. However, reference is being made to these rules to ascertain the purport of the term 'qualifying service' for purpose of pension. Chapter V deals with the topic of qualifying services. Rule 30 deals with commencement of qualifying service which reads thus: "Subject to the provisions of these rules, qualifying service of a Government servant shall commence from the date he takes charges of the post to which he is first appointed either substantively or in an officiating or temporary capacity: Provided that at the time of retirements he shall hold substantively a permanent post in Government service of holds a suspended lien or certificate of permanency." 10. It conveys thereform that qualifying service as contemplated under clause 7 of the scheme means the total service rendered by a teacher either in officiating, temporary of permanent capacity, who held a permanent post substantively at the time of his retirement. In view of these provisions as contained, we have reached to the conclusion that the teachers who are permanent in service at the time of the retirement are alone entitled to pension under the scheme as contained in Annexure (34) of the Code. 11. As discussed, the petitioner was untrained throughout. He could not be confirmed legally in service in view of the provision contained in Rule 68.4 of the Code. The petitioner is, therefore, into entitled to a pension. The impugned order as passed by respondent No. 1 Deputy Director of Education is just and proper. The petition is, therefore, liable to dismissed. 12. The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed. ----