Pandurang Rukhmaji Koturwar vs The State Of Mah & Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 6877 Bom

                                                                            1021.odt
               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          WRIT PETITION NO. 1917 OF 2005




                                                                       
        Pandurang s/o Rukhamji Koturwar             ...  Petitioner 
        Aged 76 years, Occu: Pensioner,




                                               
        R/o c/o Smt. Sudha Prakash 
        Darbastwar, Plot No.19, "Deep" 
        Sangram Nagar, Near Renukamata 
        Mandir, Beed Bye-pass, 




                                              
        Aurangabad.

        VERSUS

    1. The  State of Maharashtra




                                      
       Through its  Secretary,
       School Education Department
                               
       Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 32

    2.  The  Director of Education, 
                              
        M. S. Pune.

    3. The Deputy Director of Education, ...
       Aurngabad.
      


    4. The Education Officer(Primary)
   



       Zilla Parishad, Nanded.

    5. Nutan Education Society,





       Through tis Secretary,
       Shri Shriniwas @ Bapusaheb 
       gorthekar- Deshmukh, Umri 
       Dist. Nanded.





    6. The State of Andhra Pradesh
       Through its Principal Secretary,
       Department of General 
       Administration, Secretariat, 
       Hyderabad. 


    Mr. U. R. Awate, i/by Talekar and Associates, Advocate 
    for the petitioner
    Mrs.S. S. Raut, AGP for the Respondents 1 to 3 -State ,
    Mr. s. S. Choudhari, Advocate for respondent No.5.

                                                                                    1/5
      ::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2016             ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2016 00:38:28 :::
                                                                                 1021.odt
                                     CORAM   :  S. V. GANGAPURWALA & 
                                                 K. L. WADANE, JJ.
                                      DATE   :   2nd December, 2016




                                                                           
    ORDER:     

1. Mr. Awate, the learned counsel for the

petitioner states that the petitioner was appointed

initially on 11.11.1952 in Nutan Vidyalaya High School,

Umri, run by the Aryan Education Society, Hyderabad.

Under order dated 30.06.1956, the petitioner came to be

transferred to Keshav Memorial High School,

Narayanguda, Hyderabad. Thereafter the petitioner was

further transferred from the said school to Shamlal

Memorial High School, Udgir under order dated

01.07.1957 and the petitioner stood retired on

attaining the age of superannuation on 01.11.1986.

Pension papers of the petitioner were forwarded in

1989. The pension is sanctioned in favour of the

petitioner. The learned counsel submits that while

considering the claim of pension, the services rendered

by the petitioner from the year 1952 till June, 1957

are not considered. According to the learned counsel,

in view of the provisions of the State Reorganization

Act, more particularly Sub Section 7 of Section 115 of

the said Act, services rendered by the petitioner in

1021.odt the erstwhile Hyderabad State shall have to be counted

for the purpose of pension. According to the leaned

counsel, conditions of service cannot be altered upon

the State Reorganization. Conditions of service

would remain the same. The learned counsel relies on

the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M. D.

Shukla Vs. State of Gujrat, reported in 1970 (1) SCC

419 and the judgment of the Division Bench of this

Court in case of Zilo Zo and others Vs. State of Goa

and others, reported in 2012 (2) Bom.C.R. 450 so also

the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Writ

Petition No.8226/2006 dated 9th June, 2014.

2. Mr. Choudhari, the learned counsel for the

respondent No.5 Institution states that the factum of

the petitioner having rendered services from 1952 is

not disputed, however, the claim of the petitioner is

belated. In 1989, pension was sanctioned and the

petition is filed in the year 2005.

3. Mr. Raut, the learned AGP submits that the

petitioner has rendered services with the respondent

Institution in this State since 1957. As such, the

services rendered in other State could not have been

considered for the purpose of pension. According to

1021.odt the learned AGP, even the Government resolution dated

14.02.1986 would not come to the aid of the petitioner.

Services rendered by the petitioner from 11.11.1952 to

31.08.1957 in the erstwhile State of Hyderabad is

rightly not considered. Further, there is enormous

delay in filing the writ petition.

4. We have considered the submissions canvassed by

the learned counsel for the respective parties.

5.

The details of the conditions of services are

not before this Court. It is not disputed that the

petitioner was appointed on 11.11.1952 as an Assistant

Teacher at Umri in the erstwhile State of Hyderabad.

Thereafter on 30th June, 1956 he was transferred to

Keshav Memorial High School, Narayanguda, Hyderabad

and again to Shamlal Memorial High School, Udgir on

01.07.1957. What were the conditions of service when

the petitioner was serving with erstwhile State of

Hyderabad are not before this Court. Whether the said

service in the State of Hyderabad was pensionable

service or not is also not before this Court. In

absence of any such details, it would not be possible

to conclude in favour of the petitioner. It is true

that the conditions of service cannot be altered upon

1021.odt Reorganization of the State and that the area where the

petitioner was working i.e. Umri was subsequently

formed part of the State of Maharashtra. However, in

absence of any conditions of service governing the

petitioner during his service period in the erstwhile

State of Hyderabad, being on record, it would not be

possible for us to decide in favour of the petitioner.

In light of that, the writ petition is dismissed. Rule

discharged. No costs.

(K. L. WADANE, J.) (S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ) JPC