Judgment wp2843.02
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 2843 OF 2002.
Ghanshyamdas s/o Narayandas Chandak,
Aged about 69 years, Occupation - Nil,
r/o. Jeewanchhaya Building,
New Ramdas Peth, Nagpur 440 010. ....PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra,
Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.
through its Secretary.
2. The Joint Director,
Higher Education, Nagpur Division,
Nagpur, through its
Administrative Officer. ....RESPONDENTS
.
-----------------------------------
Mr. V.P. Marpakwar, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. V.P. Maldhure, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Respondents.
------------------------------------
CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI &
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : DECEMBER 22, 2017.
::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 02:46:03 :::
Judgment wp2843.02 2 ORAL JUDGMENT. (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J) Petitioner who has retired on 31.10.1992 on reaching his age of superannuation seeks addition of period from 10.07.1956 to 19.06.1964, for the purposes of computation of his pension.
2. This Court has issued Rule in the matter on 17.10.2002. Respondents thereafter have not filed any reply-affidavit. In this backdrop, we have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of respondents attempted to obtain adjournment to file reply. However, the said request is strongly opposed by learned counsel for the petitioner. In present situation, when return should have been filed within a period of 6 weeks of admission of the matter, we have rejected the request made by learned A.G.P., as it is not supported by any valid reason.
3. According to learned counsel for petitioner, the issue is covered by adjudication by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Madhukar .vrs. State of Maharashtra and others (2014 (II) CLR 281). This judgment has been followed by the Division Bench of this Court while deciding Writ Petition No. ::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 02:46:03 ::: Judgment wp2843.02 3 4234/2014 on 23.02.2015. Both these judgments have thereafter been followed while deciding Writ Petition No. 1484/2011 on 21.10.2016 by the Division Bench of this Court and one of us (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J) is party to it. He submits that, same law and analogy must apply here.
4. Learned A.G.P. without prejudice to the request rejected above and with a view to assist the Court, invited our attention to Rule 46 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 and facts disclosed by the petitioner himself. He submits that twice petitioner has resigned from services, and therefore, there is break and service prior to breaks and last continuous service therefore, cannot be clubbed for calculating qualifying service. He also submits that the government resolution dated 11.03.1992, which has been appreciated along with Rule 48 of the Pension Rules, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not been produced before this Court by the petitioner.
5. Facts show that petitioner worked as Lecturer in Commerce and his service in Madhya Pradesh have been accepted as continuous from 10.07.1956. He was transferred by Madhya Pradesh Government on 23.11.1963 to Government Degree College, Seoni (M.P.), where he continued till 18.06.1964. It is claimed that he resigned from that ::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 02:46:03 ::: Judgment wp2843.02 4 government service w.e.f. 19.06.1964, and said resignation was accepted and he was relieved on 19.06.1964. Petitioner also claimed that on next day i.e. 20.06.1964, he joined as Principal at Suwalal Patni Arts and Commerce College, Pulgaon, District Wardha and worked there till 10.05.1967. He resigned from that post and joined as Principal at Nabira Mahavidyalaya, Katol on 12.06.1967, where he continued till his superannuation on 31.10.1992.
6. Assertion by petitioner that services rendered by him in Maharashtra from 20.06.1964 till 31.10.1992 has been accepted and counted as qualifying service for computing pension, has remained un- rebutted. The provisions of Rule 46, in this situation cannot save the situation for respondents. Service rendered by petitioner before joining at Katol has been accepted and treated as continuous one by them.
7. Identical situation has been looked into in all the three judgments mentioned supra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also has in similar facts clubbed service of employee in Madhya Pradesh with his services in Maharashtra for the purpose of pension. That view of Hon'ble Supreme Court has then followed in later two judgments by two Division Benches of this Court. We therefore, need not dilate on those judgments. ::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 02:46:03 :::
Judgment wp2843.02 5
8. Here, in view of those judgments, we find that services rendered by the petitioner in State of Madhya Pradesh from 10.07.1956 upto 19.06.1964 need to be added to his period of qualifying service. Accordingly by adding that period to his qualifying service, his pension needs to be determined, and arrears to be worked out on that basis, therefore, need to be made over to him.
9. He has been superannuated on 31.10.1992 and has approached this Court in writ jurisdiction on 30.07.2002. Petitioner has annexed representation moved by him in the years 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000 which show efforts made by him to get his grievance redressed. On 04.02.2000, he was informed that his service in Madhya Pradesh cannot be considered at all. This was also informed to him earlier by Annexure-VI dated 20.07.1999. Thereafter, petitioner has again submitted a representation on 26.05.2000.
10. In this situation, we deny him interest on arrears so calculated for the period commencing from the date of his superannuation till the expiry of period of three years from the date of filing of the petition. Thus, interest of arrears shall be paid to him from 30.07.2005 onwards at 6% on the amount ::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 02:46:03 ::: Judgment wp2843.02 6 of arrears, till the arrears are made over to him.
11. Learned A.G.P. at this stage submits that the petitioner may have worked as a Presiding Officer of College Tribunal for some period thereafter and may have also earned salary. Hence, while calculating the arrears, respondent can keep this fact in mind and if the fact is correct, arrears can be adjusted accordingly.
12. With these directions, Writ Petition is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rgd.
::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 02:46:03 :::