JUDGMENT : Sandipkumar C. More, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally at admission stage. 2. The petitioner in the present writ petition is seeking quashing of the communication dated 31/08/2020 / 07/09/2020 issued by respondent No.3 to respondent No.7 college, as well as herself whereby respondent No.3 i.e. the Joint Director (Higher Education) Pune Regional Office, Pune has declined to sanction pensionary benefits to the petitioner as she was not possessing the requisite qualification i.e. NET/SET or PHD on the date of her appointment and also not acquired the said qualification within the specified period. 3. The petitioner was appointed as a lecturer vide order dated 08/09/1986 in respondent No.7 college run by respondent No.6 Ahmednagar Jilha Maratha Vidya Prasarak Samaj's a charitable Trust. Accordingly, the petitioner joined the said post as a full time lecturer on 11/09/1986. Respondent No.5 University had also approved the appointment of the petitioner vide order dated 10/11/1986, which was in fact for the period from 11/09/1986 to 05/03/1987. Thereafter, the said appointment was continued from time to time. Then as per advertisement published by respondent No.6 in daily news paper "Kesari" on 20/06/1991, for the appointment of candidates on the post of lecturer for full time and part time, the petitioner got selected for the post of lecturer in Chemistry. 4. However, on 01/10/1993 she was terminated by the management. In appeal bearing No. 79 of 1993 preferred by the petitioner before the College Tribunal, her aforesaid termination was held illegal and her services were again confirmed. In the year 1995, also the respondent No.7 college again terminated the services of the petitioner, but when the petitioner filed contempt petition bearing No.181 of 1995 before the High Court, the concerned management made a statement before the High Court in the said petition that they had not terminated her and therefore, the petitioner remained in service as before. 5. Thereafter, in the year 2000, the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No.2938 of 2000 in this Court for granting her permanency/confirmation on the post of lecturer in Chemistry from the date of her appointment in respondent No.7 college. However, during pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, Head of the Chemistry Department in Respondent No.7 college Shri E. G. Sase retired on 28/02/2003 and hence the petitioner was accommodated in his place. However, during pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, Head of the Chemistry Department in Respondent No.7 college Shri E. G. Sase retired on 28/02/2003 and hence the petitioner was accommodated in his place. The office of Joint Director (Higher Education), Pune Region, Pune also approved such accommodation of the petitioner from 28/02/2003 on the grant in aid post. Thereafter, the petitioner was also conferred with Selection Grade on 06/03/2007. She was conferred with the designation as a Associate Professor from 01/01/2006 vide order dated 27/11/2009 by the concerned competent authority and the same was also approved by the Joint Director (Higher Education) Pune Region, Pune by its endorsement on the said order. The petitioner then retired on 31/01/2020 on superannuation. 6. The petitioner, thus, claims that as she served continuously in respondent No.7 college for more than 34 years. Respondent No.6 forwarded her proposal for grant of pension to respondent No.3 i.e. the Joint Director (Higher Education) Pune Region, Pune. However, under the impugned order as mentioned above, respondent No.3 declined to grant her pension for the reasons already mentioned above. Hence, this writ petition. 7. On the contrary, the learned AGP on behalf of respondent No.3 strongly opposed the petition by fling an affidavit in reply along with copy of Government Resolution dated 22/11/1993. According to respondent No.3, the present petitioner is not at all entitled for receiving any pensionary benefit as her service for the period from 1986 till 28/02/2003 was purely on temporary basis and that too in non grant unit. Further during that period, the petitioner was appointed on part time basis in non grant unit for certain period. Further, there were also breaks in her service from time to time and she was again appointed only on temporary basis for specific period. 8. As such, it is claimed by respondent No.3 that such services of the petitioner in non-grant unit on temporary basis cannot be considered for grant of any pensionary benefit. It is specifically averred by respondent No.3 that the petitioner was accommodated from non-grant unit to grant unit only on 28/02/2003 during the pendency of Writ Petition No. 2938 of 2000 filed by her on retirement of Shri E. G. Sase. It is specifically averred by respondent No.3 that the petitioner was accommodated from non-grant unit to grant unit only on 28/02/2003 during the pendency of Writ Petition No. 2938 of 2000 filed by her on retirement of Shri E. G. Sase. Though respondent No.3 has contended that such shifting of the petitioner on the said post from non-grant unit to grant unit was illegal on the part of the management of respondent No.7 college, but it is further stated that at the time of such appointment it was necessary for the petitioner to acquire the requisite qualifications as prescribed by the University Grant Commission/Government. But she failed to acquire such qualifications. According to respondent No.3, the college where the petitioner had rendered services ought to have been fully aided on the date of the retirement of the petitioner and therefore, the services rendered by the petitioner in non-grant unit can not be treated as qualifying service for pension purpose. Respondent No.3 has further contended that as per the Government Resolution dated 29/10/2021, lecturers, who were appointed between 23/10/1992 and 03/04/2000, are only exempted from requirement of NET/SET clearance. Thus, the petitioner being appointed on 28/02/2003 on grant unit is not eligible for getting pensionary benefits as she does not possess the requisite qualification of NET/SET clearance. 9. We have carefully gone through the entire documents filed on record by the petitioner as well as the affidavit in reply along with the concerned Government Resolutions, with the assistance of the learned advocate for the petitioner as well as AGP. 10. The petitioner is claiming that she was appointed as a lecturer in respondent No.7 college since 08/09/1986 and continued her service till her retirement on 31/01/2020 i.e. for more than 34 years and therefore, she is entitled for pension. On perusal of material on record, it is evident that the petitioner has produced copies of her appointment orders issued by respondent Nos.5 & 6. However, on perusal of those orders, it is clearly evident that all those appointment orders were for specific periods, not more than one year and purely on temporary basis or on leave vacancy basis. Though there are some orders of respondent No.5 University, but those orders are also for specific periods. However, on perusal of those orders, it is clearly evident that all those appointment orders were for specific periods, not more than one year and purely on temporary basis or on leave vacancy basis. Though there are some orders of respondent No.5 University, but those orders are also for specific periods. Not a single order is placed on record, issued by respondent No.3 i.e. the Joint Director (Higher Education) Pune Regional Office, Pune of approving the services of the petitioner from 1986 till 28/02/2003. 11. It is apparent from those orders that during that period, the petitioner was working either on leave vacancy basis or temporary basis. Moreover, there were breaks in her service and twice she was terminated by the management during the aforesaid period. Though it is a fact that she was reinstated by the orders of the College Tribunal as well as this Court, but nothing is there on record to show that during the aforesaid period i.e. from 1986 up to 28/02/2003, she was in permanent service. In the absence of any approval from respondent No.3 as regards the aforesaid service of the petitioner, it cannot be held that she was in permanent service in respondent no.7 college for the said period. Further, respondent No.7 college has clearly admitted in letter dated 12/01/2004 issued to respondent No.3 that the petitioner started service as a full time lecturer since 01/07/1994 in non-grant unit. Thus, it is clearly evident that till 28/02/2003 there was no approval from respondent No.3 in respect of the temporary services of the petitioner in respondent No.7 college. 12. It is for the first time vide letter dated 17/03/2004, that respondent No.3 has recognized and approved the service of the petitioner from non-grant unit to grant unit with effect from 28/02/2003. As such, it can be seen that the authorized body i.e. respondent No.3 has approved the service of the petitioner being Head of the Department from 28/02/2003 in grant unit. Though the learned advocate for the petitioner relied upon certain documents whereby there was fixation of pay of the petitioner by showing her appointment date from 01/08/1989, but as noted earlier, the petitioner got appointed in grant unit only on 28/02/2003, which has been recognized by respondent No.3. 13. The core question in the instant petition is whether the petitioner is entitled for pension. 13. The core question in the instant petition is whether the petitioner is entitled for pension. As per Government Resolution dated 29/10/2021 issued by Maharashtra Government, only the lecturers who were appointed during the period from 23/10/1993 to 03/04/2000 are exempted from obtaining requisite qualification i.e. clearing of NET/SET examination. In the instant case, the petitioner appears to be in service in aided unit from 28/02/2003 and therefore, it was obligatory for her to possess requisite qualification as per the mandate of Government Resolution dated 29/10/2021 i.e. to have clearance of NET/SET examination for being entitled for pensionary benefits. 14. The Division Bench of this Court (Coram : Sunil B. Shukre and Anil L. Pansare, JJ.) at Nagpur Bench in Writ Petition No. 4995 of 2021 has also taken such view by referring the aforesaid Government Resolution dated 29/10/2021 and held that only the lecturers who were appointed between 23/10/1992 and 03/04/2000 are exempted from the requirement of NET/SET clearance. The present petitioner does not have such exemption. Moreover, the requisition as set out in the Government Resolution dated 22/11/1993 for considering the service of the petitioner in non-grant college, is also not fulfilled since at the time of retirement of the petitioner respondent No.7 college was not 100% grant-in-aid. 15. The petitioner has relied upon following judgments : (A) Writ Petition No. 1673 of 2021 (Smt. Kalpana Jagatrao Dahiwale vs. The State of Maharashtra and others), decided on 04/08/2021 at Bombay; (B) Writ Petition No. 4959 of 2017 (Uttam R. Patil vs. The State of Maharashtra and others), decided on 31/01/2020 at Bombay; (C) Writ Petition No. 5164 of 2021 (Mohd. Sahfuddin Mohd Shamshoddin vs. The State of Maharashtra and others), decided on 08/09/2021 at Aurangabad; (D) Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (c) No. 1109 of 2022 (The State of Gujarat and Others vs. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel); (E) Writ Petition No. 11545 of 2021 (Shri Vishwanath Eknath Patil vs. The State of Maharashtra and others), decided on 13/04/2022 at Aurangabad and (F) Writ Petition No.7733 of 2011 (Gorle Raghav Das vs. Bhusawal Arts Science and Ponatha Commerce College Bhusawal through Principal and others), decided on 25/11/2014 at Aurangabad; 16. However, on careful reading of all the aforesaid judgments, it is evident that all these judgments are not helpful to the petitioner mainly because they are on different issues than the issue which prevails in the instant petition. However, on careful reading of all the aforesaid judgments, it is evident that all these judgments are not helpful to the petitioner mainly because they are on different issues than the issue which prevails in the instant petition. The aforesaid judgments are dealing with the contingencies viz counting of pensionable service what should be the exact starting date of service tenure etc. In the instant case, it is apparent from the record that services of the petitioner were not approved during the period from 1986 till 28/02/2003. Moreover, there were breaks in her services, which were purely on temporary basis. Further, the petitioner served either on leave vacancy basis or full time and part time basis during the aforesaid period. Not a single document is there on record for the aforesaid period showing that her services were approved by respondent No.3 in any manner. On the contrary, her service in aided college appears to be approved only from 28/02/2003 and therefore, as per the Government Resolution dated 29/10/2019 she was supposed to obtain qualification of NET/SET clearance, which she could not acquire till her retirement. Thus, it clearly appears that the petitioner is not eligible for getting pensionary benefits. 17. Thus, in view of our above discussion, we come to the conclusion that respondent No.3 has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner to grant her pensionary benefits since she was serving in respondent No.7 from 11/01/1986 till 28/02/2003 purely on temporary basis and that despite being appointed on granted post from 28/02/2003, she failed to acquire the requisite qualification regarding NET/SET clearance. Thus, we find no merit in the instant writ petition and same is liable to be dismissed. Hence, we pass following order. ORDER (I) Writ petition is hereby dismissed (II) Rule stands discharged.