Sunita Dharma Lakekar vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 4544 Bom

                                             {1}
                                                                     wp 6920.16.odt

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY




                                                                           
                            BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                         WRIT PETITION NO.6920 OF 2016




                                                   
     Sunita w/o Dharma Lakekar
     age: 45 years, occu: house hold




                                                  
     R/o Near Nijamoddin Dargah
     Kaisar Colony, Aurangabad
     District: Aurangabad                                             Petitioner




                                       
              Versus


     1
                             
              The State of Maharashtra
              through Secretary,
              Rural Development Department,
                            
              Mantralaya, Mumbai

     2        The Chief Executive Officer
              Zilla Parishad Aurangabad
              Dist. Aurangabad
      


     3        The District Health Officer,
   



              Zilla Parishad Aurangabad
              Dist. Aurangabad

     4        The Chief Accounts & Finance Officer,





              Finance Department,
              Zilla Parishad Aurangabad
              Dist. Aurangabad

     5        The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate





              Verification Committee Aurangabad
              through its Dy. Director (R)
              Amrawati                                              Respondents

Mr.S.M. Vibhute advocate for the petitioner

Mr. G.B. Paturkar h/f Mr. M.C. Swami advocate for respondent No.4 _______________

{2} wp 6920.16.odt

CORAM : R.M. BORDE & K.L. WADANE, JJ

(Date : 8th August, 2016.)

ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: R.M. Borde, J)

1 Heard.

2 Rule. With the consent of the parties, petition is taken up

for final decision, at admission stage.

3 The husband of the petitioner was in employment of the

Zilla Parishad as a peon, since 1989 and passed away on

26.1.2015, while in employment. The husband of the petitioner

belongs to Mannerwar, Scheduled Tribe and the caste certificate

issued to him has been referred to scrutiny committee for

verification long back. The verification claim in respect of the

certificate issued to the husband of the petitioner is stated to be

pending with the scrutiny committee. Before the scrutiny

committee could decide the issue, the husband of the petitioner

passed away and as such, the petitioner claims pensionery

benefits accruable to him by virtue of his service spanning for

about 25 years. The Zilla Parishad authorities, however, called for

the opinion from the scrutiny committee, as regards eligibility of

{3} wp 6920.16.odt

the wife to claim pension and pensionery benefits in absence of

the validation certificate.

4 In fact, it is not for the scrutiny committee to render such

opinion and it was not necessary for the Zilha Parishad to seek

any clarification from the scrutiny committee. The husband of the

petitioner had served for about 25 years and as such his wife, on

demise of her husband is entitled to claim pension and pensionery

benefits. Pension is a right earned by an employee by virtue of his

continuous service and such right cannot be taken away or

withheld on any count except as provided under the concerned

regulations.

5 In the instant matter even in absence of validation

certificate, petitioner cannot be held ineligible to claim the

pensionery benefits and the pension accruable to the deceased

employee.

6 In the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the

respondent Zillha Parishad to disburse the amount of regular

pension admissible under the Regulations to the petitioner,

without insisting for production of validation certificate. Necessary

steps shall be taken as expeditiously as possible and preferably

within a period of eight months from today.

{4} wp 6920.16.odt

7 Rule is made absolute in above terms.

8 There shall be no order as to costs.

                  (K.L. WADANE, J)                    (R.M.BORDE, J)




                                      
     vbd