Bombay High Court
Devidas Motiram Gaikwad And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ... on 20 December, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp6608.16.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.6608/2016
PETITIONERS: 1. Devidas Motiram Gaikwad,
aged 42 years, Occ. Asst. Teacher,
R/o C/o Rajiv Uchcha Madhyamik Vidyalaya,
Patan, Tq. Zari Jamni, Distt. Yavatmal.
2. Vitthal Poshatti Chukalwar
aged 45 years, Occu : Jr. Clerk,
ig R/o C/o Rajiv Uchcha Madhyamik Vidyalaya,
Patan, Tq. Zari Jamni, Distt. Yavatmal.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary,
Higher Education Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32.
2. Dy. Director of Education, Amravati Division,
Amravati.
3. The Superintendent, Pay and Provident Fund
Unit (Secondary), Yavatmal.
4. The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal.
5. Rajiv Kanisth Mahavidyalaya Patan
Tq. Zari, Distt. Yavatmal, through its Principal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri P.S. Kshirsagar, Advocate for petitioners
Mrs. H.N. Prabhu, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 4
Shri Mahesh Rai, Advocate for respondent no.5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2016 01:38:15 :::
wp6608.16.odt
2
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, AND
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 20.12.2016
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard
finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
By this petition, the petitioners seek a declaration that they
are entitled to the benefits under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension)
Rules, 1982 and the New Defined Contributory Pension Scheme would
not be applicable to them.
According to the petitioners, since the petitioners were
appointed as Assistant Teachers in the school run by the respondent
before the cut off date (1.11.2005) on 1.8.2004 and 30.7.2001 and since
the school in which they were appointed was brought on 100% grant-in-
aid before the cut off date, i.e., 1.11.2005, they would be governed by the
Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules and not by the New Defined
Contributory Pension Scheme.
Shri Kshirsagar, the learned Counsel for the petitioners
states that the issue involved in this case stands answered in favour of the
petitioners by the judgment, dated 10.7.2014 in Writ Petition
No.6689/2013. It is stated that in almost identical set of facts, this Court
has granted a declaration as prayed by the petitioners and has held that
wp6608.16.odt
the petitioners would be governed by the Maharashtra Civil Services
(Pension) Rules, 1982. It is stated that a similar order may be passed in
this writ petition, on parity.
Mrs. Prabhu, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing for the respondent nos.1 to 4 and Shri Futane, the learned
Counsel for the respondent no.5 do not dispute the position of law, as laid
down by the judgment, dated 10.7.2014 in Writ Petition No.6689/2013.
It is not disputed that the petitioners were appointed in clear vacancies
before the cut off date, i.e., 1.11.2005 and the school in which they were
appointed was brought on 100% grant-in-aid before the cut off date.
Since both the conditions that are required to be satisfied for claiming the
benefits of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 are
satisfied in the case of the petitioners, it would be necessary to hold that
the petitioners would be governed by the Maharashtra Civil Services
(Pension) Rules and not by the New Defined Contributory Pension
Scheme.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid and also for the reasons
recorded in the judgment, dated 10.7.2014 in Writ Petition
No.6689/2013, the present writ petition is allowed. It is hereby declared
that the petitioners would be entitled to the benefits of the Maharashtra
Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 and the New Defined Contributory
wp6608.16.odt
Pension Scheme would not be applicable to them.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order
as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
