Bombay High Court
Smt.Savita Wd/O Sudhakar ... vs State Of Maharashtra,Thr.Secy.& ... on 6 May, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
1 wp4030.05
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.4030 OF 2005
Smt. Savita wd/o Sudhakar
Pandharkar, aged : major,
occupation : housewife,
r/o At and Post Deolghat,
Taluka Buldhana, District
Buldhana. ... Petitioner
- Versus -
1) State of Maharashtra,
through the Secretary,
Department of Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2) The Director of Social Welfare
Department, Maharashtra State,
Pune.
3) The Director of Education,
State of Maharashtra, Pune.
4) The Accountant General (A&D),
Account General Office,
Civil Lines, Nagpur. ... Respondents
-----------------
Shri H.A. Deshpande, Advocate for petitioner.
Smt. M.N. Hiwase, Assistant Government Pleader for
respondents.
----------------
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 01:08:51 :::
2 wp4030.05
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND
P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ.
DATED : MAY 6, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) :
By the present petition filed under Articles 226
and 227 of Constitution of India, petitioner widow of
superannuated employee claims relief of clubbing of
previous service rendered by her husband with his later
service. By the impugned order dated 10/12/1998,
respondent no.2 Director of Social Welfare has relied
upon paragraph 3(7) of Government Resolution dated
1/2/1984 extending pension scheme to employees of
special Schools and Hostels. The said respondent has
pointed out that the Government Resolution does not
permit such clubbing of two services. Vide later
communication dated 21/1/2002, State Government
has found that service put in by husband of petitioner
in special Schools/Hostels was of 13 years and 6
months and as it was in excess of 10 years and as
3 wp4030.05
deceased husband was, therefore, entitled to receive
pension, request for clubbing previous service with this
service has been turned down by refusing to treat it as
a special case.
2) Facts are not in dispute. Husband of petitioner
has worked from 1/7/1971 to 30/6/1981 in a private
Government recognized aided School. The petitioner
has specifically averred that her husband has drawn
salary for the said period from public exchequer and
respondents have not denied this fact. He joined the
residential School for physically challenged on 1/7/1981
and retired from that service after reaching age of
superannuation on 31/12/1994.
3) Husband of petitioner was given extension of
two years beyond superannuation, but that is not
relevant for adjudication of the present controversy.
4) Smt. Hiwase, learned Assistant Government
4 wp4030.05
Pleader has invited our attention to the fact that in the
petition, petitioner has pointed out that her husband
resigned from his earlier service, i.e. service with
Shivaji High School, Loni Gavli, District Buldhana on
30/6/1983. She, therefore, submits that from 1/7/1981
till 30/6/1983 husband of petitioner could not have
legally worked in the above mentioned residential
School.
5) Adv. Deshpande for petitioner submits that
husband of petitioner was given leave for the aforesaid
period with permission to join other employer. Our
attention is drawn to service book entry in service book
maintained by his earlier employer in support of this
contention. Perusal of that entry shows that
resignation was accepted from 30/6/1983. It is also
mentioned that he was permitted to work elsewhere
from 1/7/1981.
6) In the present matter, we are only concerned
5 wp4030.05
with the Clause which, according to respondents, does
not enable petitioner to claim clubbing of two
employments. Perusal of Clause 7 of Government
Resolution dated 1/2/1984 shows that only previous
service rendered in aided special Schools or special
hostels can be looked into. Paragraph 8 thereof shows
that provisions of Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension)
Rules, 1982 are also applicable.
7) A controversy of somewhat similar nature has
been looked into by this Bench only while deciding Writ
Petition No.744/2005 on 29/4/2016. There we have
considered judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in
Madhukar vs. State of Maharashtra and others
{(2014 (4) ALL MR 448(S.C.)}. The Hon'ble Apex Court
in that ruling has considered provisions of Rule 48(3) of
Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 as
also Government Resolution dated 11/3/1992, which
permits clubbing of previous service with existing
service. In that matter, petitioner before this Court had
6 wp4030.05
retired as a Lecturer from Law College and when he
joined employment, pension scheme was not
applicable. It was implemented after judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of
Maharashtra vs. Manubhai Pragaji Vashi and
others (AIR 1996 SC 1).
8)
Facts at hand are not different. When
husband of petitioner joined service of Hostel for
physically challenged students, pension scheme was
not applicable. Pension scheme has been implemented
about three years thereafter. The Government
Resolution dated 11/3/1992 is very clear.
9) Hence, following judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Madhukar vs. State of
Maharashtra and others (supra) and the judgment
delivered by us on 29/4/2016 in Writ Petition
No.744/2005, we find that services of husband of
petitioner from 1/7/1971 till 30/6/1981 are liable to be
7 wp4030.05
clubbed with his later service to compute his total
qualifying service for the purpose of grant of pension
and other retiral/terminal benefits.
10) Accordingly, we quash and set aside the
orders dated 10/12/1998 and 21/1/2002 passed
respectively by ig Director of Social Welfare and
Government of Maharashtra.
The respondents shall complete the exercise of
correctly computing qualifying service of deceased
husband of petitioner within a period of four months
from the date of communication of this judgment to
them. Consequential arrears shall be released to
petitioner thereafter within next three months.
Entitlement of deceased husband and thereafter of
petitioner to interest on account of delayed payment
shall also be evaluated by the Authorities
independently in their own discretion.
Acceptance of amount by petitioner shall not
preclude her from challenging correctness of the
8 wp4030.05
exercise undertaken.
The writ petition is thus partly allowed and
disposed of. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
khj
