Bombay High Court
Ramanunj S/O. Narayankishore ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. ... on 26 April, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
1/4 2604WP1802.16-Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 1802 OF 2016
PETITIONER :- Ramanunj S/o Narayankishore Sharma,
Aged 62 years, Occ. Retired, R/o. Vidyapeeth
Road, Yankayapura, Camp Amravati - 444
602. District - Amravati.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through the
ig Director Higher Education Central Building,
Pune.
2) The Joint Director, Higher Education,
Amravati Region, VMV College Premises,
Amravati.
3) Sant Gadge Baba Amravati Vidyapeeth,
Through Registrar, University Campus,
Amravati.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. A. Agrawal, counsel for the petitioner.
Mrs. Rashi Deshpande, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the respondent Nos. & 2.
Mr. J.B.Kasat, counsel for the respondent No.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK &
V. M.DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED : 26.04.2016
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A. Naik, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is
heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned
counsel for the parties.
2/4 2604WP1802.16-Judgment
2. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the
respondents to pay the pensionary benefits to the petitioner.
3. The petitioner was appointed as a Peon by the respondent
No.3-University on 14/07/1986. The appointment of the petitioner was
approved by the respondent No.2 and the petitioner continued to work
with the respondent No.3-University till he attained the age of
superannuation on 31/08/2014. After the retirement, the petitioner
applied to the respondent No.3-University for grant of pension and the
respondent No.3-University forwarded the pension case of the petitioner
to the respondent No.2. It is stated that an audit objection was raised
by the Accounts Department in regard to the overage of the petitioner
at the time of his appointment on 14/07/1986. According to the
Accounts Department, the maximum age for appointment of the Peon at
the relevant time was 28 years and the petitioner was aged 31 years 10
months and 29 days on the date of his appointment. In view of the
audit objection, the pensionary benefits are not being released in favour
of the petitioner.
4. Shri Agrawal, the learned counsel for the petitioner,
submitted that the services of the petitioner were approved by the
respondents and the petitioner received the regular salary during the
period of 28 years of service. It is stated that for the first time, the
Accounts Department of the State Government has raised an objection
that the petitioner was over aged at the time of his appointment. It is
3/4 2604WP1802.16-Judgment
stated that such a belated objection should not have been raised by the
Accounts Department. It is further stated that even if the petitioner was
over aged, the State Government should consider relaxing the condition
of age in respect of the petitioner, in the circumstances of the case.
5. Mrs.Deshpande, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2, submitted that in
the circumstances of the case, an appropriate direction may be issued
against the respondents. It is, however, not disputed that the petitioner
has regularly worked with the respondent No.3-University for a
considerable period.
6. Shri Kasat, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3-
University, supported the claim of the petitioner. It is stated that the
pension case of the petitioner was rightly referred by the respondent
No.3-University to the respondent No.2 for further processing, as the
petitioner had rendered pensionable service.
7. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find
that there is no propriety in the action on the part of the Accounts
Department to raise an objection in regard to the petitioner being over
aged at the time of his appointment, after his retirement. Such an
objection should have been raised by the Accounts Department at an
earlier point of time or immediately after the appointment of the
petitioner in service. However, this was not done till the petitioner was
4/4 2604WP1802.16-Judgment
superannuated on 31/08/2014. Even if, the petitioner was a little over
aged at the time of his appointment, the State Government ought to
have considered the case of the petitioner for relaxation of age. An
employee, who has put in more than 28 years of service in public
employment, cannot be told at the end of his/her service that the
he/she was over aged at the time of his/her initial appointment. In the
circumstances of the case, it would be necessary for the State
Government to relax the condition in respect of age in the case of the
petitioner immediately, so that the petitioner would receive the
pensionary benefits.
8. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is
allowed. The respondent No.1-State Government is directed to pass an
order relaxing the condition of age in respect of the petitioner within a
period of six weeks. Immediately thereafter, the respondent No.2 should
process the pension case of the petitioner and pay the arrears of
pensionary benefits to him within a period of six weeks from the date of
the order of relaxation. The respondent should start paying the regular
pension to the petitioner as soon as possible. Rule is made absolute in
the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
