Bombay High Court
Shri. Ashok S/O. Maroti Dhope, And ... vs The State Of Maha.Thr.Sect. Dept. ... on 11 April, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
1 1104 jud wp 5190.15.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
Writ Petition No.5190 of 2015
1] Ashok s/o Maroti Dhope,
Aged about 67 years, Occ.-retired,
R/o.-Ravi Nagar, Behind Sudhir Colony, Akola.
2] Bhaskar s/o Narayan Ghoderao,
Aged about 67 years, Oc..-Retired,
R/o.-Galli No.3, Gajanan Nagar,
Dabki Road, Akola,
3] Baban s/o Krushnarao Kukade,
Aged about 67 years, Occ.-Retired,
R/o.-Nityanand Nagar, Gorakshan Road, Akola.
4] N.S. Gandhi Prasad,
Aged about 67 years, Occ.-Retired,
R/o.-Sivaram Bhawan, H.No.5-3-10,
Venkateswara Colony, Rampally Village,
Via Ghatkesar, Rangareddy (Distt. Telangana.),
5] Namdeo Ganbaji Zode,
Aged about 67 years, Occ.-Retired,
R/o.-13, Pragati Colony,
At and Post Sendurwafa, Tq. Sakoli, District Bhandara.
6] Sharad s/o Damodar Deshmukh,
Aged about 67 years, Occ.-Retired,
R/o.-36, Balaji Nagar, Gorakshan Road, Akola,
::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:51:27 :::
2 1104 jud wp 5190.15.odt
7] Dinkar s/o Motiram Ghatol,
Aged about 66 years, Occ.-Retired,
R/o.-Ghatol Layout, Shankar Nagar,
Jatharpeth, Akola. .... Petitioners.
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra
through its Secretary, Department of
Agriculture and Animal Husbandry,
Dairy Development and Fisheries,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2] Maharashtra Council of Agricultural
Education and Research,
through its Director General, 132-B,
Bhamburda Bhosale Nagar, Pune-411007.
3] Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth,
Akola through its Registrar, Krishinagar,
Akola 444104. .... Respondents.
Shri B.G. Kulkarni, Advocate for petitioners.
Smt. M.N. Hiwase, AGP for resp. no.1.
Shri Vyas, Advocate for resp.no.3.
Coram : B.P. Dharmadhikari &
P.N. Deshmukh, JJ.
th
Dated : 11 April, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT ( per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.)
3 1104 jud wp 5190.15.odt
1] The learned Additional Government Pleader is seeking time as
the instructions are still awaited. However, learned Advocate
Shri Kulkarni for the petitioners and learned Advocate Shri Vyas for
respondent no.3 submit that the law on the point is settled by the
Hon'ble Apex Court and is followed by the Division Bench of
Aurangabad and thereafter by the Division Bench of Nagpur.
2]
The learned Advocate Shri Kulkarni for the petitioners states
that the grievance of the petitioners can be redressed by declaring
their entitlement and individual details/facts can be verified when the
actual benefits are released. The question is how the entitlement of
the petitioners to pension after retirement on superannuation should
be worked out. On 27-02-2009, a policy decision has been taken and
average of salary in last 10 months or then salary in last month i.e.
the month of retirement, whichever is more, is to be considered. This
clarification was given prospective effect and was made applicable to
those who thereafter retired after 27-02-2009. This prospective
treatment and selection of this date is found arbitrary by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in its judgment dated 30-01-2013 in Civil Appeal No.908
of 2013. The Division Bench of this Court at Aurangabad on
09-05-2014 has also accordingly held that the benefits need to
be extended to all the employees who superannuated after
4 1104 jud wp 5190.15.odt
01-01-2006. The Division Bench at Nagpur while deciding Writ
Petition No.6517 of 2013 on 31-07-2014 followed this view.
3] The dates of retirement of the petitioners before this Court are
31-07-2006, 31-05-2006, 30-06-2006, 30-06-2006, 30-06-2006,
31-07-2006 and 31-12-2006 respectively. These petitioners have
along with petition given a chart as Annexure-'A' which shows the
difference which may be due to them if the policy decision dated
27-02-2009 is made applicable to them. We need not comment upon
the corrections and calculations here because that exercise can be
done by the respondents while releasing the benefits. From bare look
at the date on which the petitioners are retired from service, prima
facie, it is apparent that the pay drawn by them in last month of their
service has to be more than the average of pay drawn by them in
preceding 10 months.
4] In this situation, the petitioners are entitled to same relief as has
been given to others by this Court in the matters mentioned supra.
5] Accordingly, we direct the respondents to work out the pension
of respective petitioners on the basis of pay drawn by them in last
month of their service. The exercise be completed within a period of
5 1104 jud wp 5190.15.odt
six months from today. The resultant arrears shall be paid to the
respective petitioners within next three months with such interest as
law provides therefor.
6] In view of above, the petition is allowed. Rule is made
absolute accordingly. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Deshmukh
