JUDGMENT - V.M. KANADE, J.:---The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is seeking following reliefs. "i) to quash and set aside the order dated 27-12-1993 (Annexure G). ii) to grant interim stay of the order dated 27-12-1993 (Annexure G) and to further direct that the petitioner be paid ad-hoc pension during the pendency of the petition; iii) to strike down Rule 7 of Annexure 34 under the Secondary School Code as being illegal and ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India, iv) to direct the respondents to calculate the pensionable service of the petitioner by not treating the breaks in service as inadmissible for calculation of pensionable service; v) to direct the respondents to calculate and pay arrears of pension from 1-7-1988 at the rate applicable from time to time with D.C.R.G. alongwith interest at market rate; vi) saddle the cost of this petition on the respondents throughout; vii) grant any other relief deemed just and proper." 2. The petitioner is challenging the order dated 27-12-1993 passed by the Section Officer, Government of Maharashtra, School Education Department and Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur Region, Nagpur in which he has mentioned that since the services of the petitioner were terminated from 16-11-1965 to 16-7-1977 after disciplinary action was taken against him, there was a break in the service period of the petitioner for the period of 11 year, 7 months and 23 days. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he had put in 42 years of service as Assistant Teacher from 17-7-1947 to 30-6-1988. The petitioner was dismissed from service by the Secretary, Nityananad Shikshan Sanstha, Nagpur on 16-7-1977. The petitioner had preferred an appeal to the Deputy Director of Education which was partly allowed on 27-6-1978 and the order of the Secretary, Nityananad Shikshan Sanstha, Nagpur dated 16-7-1977 was set aside with a modification that the petitioner should be reinstated in the original post in the school as an Assistant Master with effect from 16-7-1977. The petitioner was, thus, given a break from the date of suspension i.e. from 23-8-1976 to 16-7-1977. The petitioner had challenged the said order of the Deputy Director of Education of allowing him to be reinstated as Assistant Master with effect from 16-7-1977 up to the High Court. The petitioner was, thus, given a break from the date of suspension i.e. from 23-8-1976 to 16-7-1977. The petitioner had challenged the said order of the Deputy Director of Education of allowing him to be reinstated as Assistant Master with effect from 16-7-1977 up to the High Court. However, his petition was rejected but liberty was given to the petitioner to move the Government for condonation of the period of break of service on the basis of the notification dated 11-8-1988. The Government Resolution dated 11-8-1988 specifically lays down that the breaks in service of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the non-Government and Secondary Schools respectively after 30-9-1984 and 31-12-1975 and also those breaks in service covered under the amended Government Resolution dated 14-12-1968 and total break period of 2 years and any one break not exceeding one year should be condoned. 4. The petitioner in this petition has also challenged the validity of the Rule 7.2 of Annexure 34 of the Secondary School Code. 5. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and respondents. We have perused the copy of the petition and annexures thereto and the return filed by the respondent. 6. So far as the question of challenge to the constitutional validity of Rule 7.2 of Annexure 34 to the Secondary School Code is concerned, it will not be necessary to consider the same as, in our view, the said Rule will not be applicable to the petitioner since the petitioner has retired in 1998. The Maharashtra Employees of Private School (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as "Act"), came into force in 1981. The petitioner retired in 1988. The provisions of the said Act, therefore, will be squarely applicable to the case of the petitioner. The said Act and Rules lay down the conditions of the services of the teachers in private schools. So far as the pension is concerned, it is made clear that after the Act has come into force, the provisions of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1981 will be applicable to the teacher. Thus, in our view, Rule 7.2 of Annexure 34 of the Secondary School Code will not be applicable to the petitioner. Thus, it is not necessary to decide the said question. 7. So far as the impugned order is concerned, the impugned order is, in our view, patently bad in law. Thus, in our view, Rule 7.2 of Annexure 34 of the Secondary School Code will not be applicable to the petitioner. Thus, it is not necessary to decide the said question. 7. So far as the impugned order is concerned, the impugned order is, in our view, patently bad in law. The Section Officer has patently erred in holding that there was a break in service for the period 11 years, 7 months and 32 days. In our view, in the impugned order the actual break in service is not properly calculated. Even other wise, if the services of the petitioner are taken into consideration excluding the disputed break, he has completed more than 26 years of service. In our view, therefore, it is necessary to decide the matter afresh after giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner to present his case. The impugned order at Annexure G dated 27-12-1993 is set aside and quashed. The respondents 1, 2 and 3 are directed to consider the application and representation of the petitioner afresh and decide the said application after giving personal hearing to the petitioner within a period of 6 months from the date of communication of this order. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Under the circumstances, no order as to costs. Rule made absolute. -----