Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika ... vs Nemdeo Laxman Umap
2016 Latest Caselaw 5929 Bom

                                                     *1*                          10.wp.10560.15


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                                                    
                            WRIT PETITION NO. 10560 OF 2015




                                                            
    Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika,
    Ahmednagar.
    Through its Commissioner.




                                                           
                                                      ...PETITIONER
          -VERSUS-

    Namdeo Laxman Umap,
    Age : 66 years, Occupation : Pensioner,




                                              
    R/o Annabhau Sathe Zopadpatti,
    Siddharthnagar, Ahmednagar.   ig                  ...RESPONDENT
                                        ...
             Advocate for Petitioner : Shri Bedre Vinayak Sudhakar.
                                
               Advocate for Respondent : Shri Barde Parag Vijay.
                                        ...
                                  CORAM:  RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

DATE :- 10th October, 2016

Oral Judgment :

1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the

consent of the parties.

2 The Petitioner/ Municipal Corporation is aggrieved by the

judgment and order dated 22.04.2015 delivered by the Industrial Court,

Ahmednagar by which Complaint (ULP) No.212/2013 has been allowed

and the Petitioner is directed to pay the difference in pension amount of

Rs.2,22,254/- to the Respondent/ Complainant.

                                                           *2*                           10.wp.10560.15


    3               Shri   Bedre,   learned   Advocate   for   the   Petitioner,   has 




                                                                                          

strenuously criticized the impugned judgment. He draws my attention to

the order dated 05.03.2001 passed by the competent authority of the

State of Maharashtra by which certain posts for Class III and Class IV

categories were created, effective from 05.03.2001. The Respondent was

working as a Safai Kamgar having been appointed on 11.06.1985. He

stood retired on 01.11.2000. After his retirement, the post was sanctioned

and as such, he cannot be granted the benefits of the 5 th and 6th pay

commissions' recommendations. His pension has, therefore, been properly

calculated as per the recommendations of the 4th pay commission.

4 Shri Bedre then draws my attention to the grounds of

challenge (I) to (XVIII) raised in the petition and submits that considering

the grounds raised, this petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned

judgment and order deserves to be quashed and set aside.

5 Shri Barde, learned Advocate for the Respondent/ Employee,

has supported the impugned judgment. He has taken me through the

cross-examination of the Management's witness namely, Rangnath Kanuji

Gawade. He points out from the reasons set out in the impugned

judgment that the reasons assigned by the Industrial Court are based on

oral and documentary evidence and hence, the impugned judgment does

*3* 10.wp.10560.15

not call for any interference.

6 I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates

and have gone through the petition paper book with their assistance.

7 There is no dispute as regards the date of appointment, the

date of retirement and the date on which the Government ordered

creation of posts which is 05.03.2001.

8 The issue is as to whether, the Respondent, who retired on

01.11.2000, would be entitled for pensionary benefits as per the

recommendations of the pay commissions applicable at the relevant time.

9 In the cross-examination of the Petitioner's witness below

Exhibit O/4, the statements made by the said witness in his cross-

examination are as follows:-

(a) The Complainant was retired from service of the

Respondent Municipal Corporation from 02.11.2000.

(b) It is true to say that 5th pay commission was made applicable to the Respondent Municipal Corporation from 01.01.1996.

(c) I cannot tell reason why the Complainant was given less pension.

(d) It is true to say that 6 th pay commission was made applicable to the Respondent from 01.01.2006.

         (e)       It   is   true   to   say   that   as   per   6 th  pay   commission  





                                                                   *4*                          10.wp.10560.15

recommendation, minimum monthly pension of the Complainant shall have been Rs.2,883/- plus D.A..

(f) I am shown the Annexures A, B and C showing basic pension as well as DA payable to the Complainant as per recommendation of 5th pay commission and 6th

pay commission and pension paid to the Complainant, without benefit of 5th pay commission and 6th pay commission.

(g) The Respondent Municipal Corporation does not have

any dispute over this Annexures A, B and C of the Complainant.

(h) It is true to say that the Complainant is entitled for paying difference in pension Rs.2,22,254/- as per

recommendation of 5th pay commission and 6th pay commission during the period from 01.11.1998 to

31.07.2012.

10 The above said statements made by the Petitioner's witness in

his cross-examination supported by Annexures A, B and C, therefore,

convinced the Industrial Court that the Respondent was entitled to the

difference in pension. The Petitioner has been unable to point out any

such circumstance by which these categoric statements made before the

Industrial Court could be nullified.

11 In the light of the above, I do not find that the impugned

judgment could be termed as being perverse or erroneous. This Writ

Petition being devoid of merit is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged.

    kps                                                            (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)