Archive · 22 Sep 2026
Bombay High Court Upholds Law Officer’s Pension Service Claim
A university law officer worked there for nearly 29 years.
Her first 13 years were as a law officer.
She later became a senior law officer on a post supported by state funding.
The Maharashtra government said the first 13 years should not count toward her pension.
The officer disagreed and took the issue to the Bombay High Court.
The court said she had worked continuously for the same university.
It also noted that her earlier service had already been recognised for pay and an age-limit relaxation.
The court ruled that refusing to count those years was unfair and arbitrary.
It ordered that the earlier service count toward her pension and stopped any recovery of benefits.
The Bombay High Court ordered that a senior law officer’s 13 years of earlier service count toward pension.
Dr Parveen Parvez Sayyaed worked at Savitribai Phule Pune University from 1997 to 2010 as a law officer.
She then served nearly 16 years as senior law officer on a state-aided post.
The Maharashtra government argued that her earlier university-funded service could not count for pension or pay protection.
The court called the withdrawal of previously granted benefits arbitrary and barred recovery or denial of pension.
- Who
- Dr Parveen Parvez Sayyaed, Savitribai Phule Pune University, the Maharashtra government, and the Bombay High Court.
- What
- The court ruled that Sayyaed’s 13 years as a law officer must count toward pension and pay-related benefits.
- When
- She served as law officer from June 9, 1997, to July 31, 2010; the court issued its order on September 21.
- Where
- Savitribai Phule Pune University in Pune; the case was decided by the Bombay High Court.
- Why
- The dispute concerned whether university-funded service could be counted after she moved to a state-aided senior law officer post.
Employee’s Position
State’s Position
Counting earlier service
Employee’s Position
Sayyaed argued that her continuous service at the university should count toward pension and that the service had already been recognised for pay protection.
State’s Position
The Maharashtra government argued that her first 13 years could not count because she held a university-funded post rather than a state-funded post.
Withdrawal of benefits
Employee’s Position
Sayyaed challenged the withdrawal of pay protection and pension-related benefits, saying she had been properly selected and continuously employed.
State’s Position
The authorities sought to withdraw benefits previously granted after treating the earlier post as outside the relevant state-funded service.
- Employee
- Dr Parveen Parvez Sayyaed
- University
- Savitribai Phule Pune University
- Earlier service
- Law officer from June 9, 1997, to July 31, 2010
- Total university service
- About 29 years
- Government’s argument
- The earlier post was university-funded rather than state-funded
- Court’s ruling
- The earlier service must count for pension; recovery and withdrawal of benefits were not permitted