Bombay High Court
Naresh S/O Labhchand Taori vs New India Assurance Company Ltd. ... on 17 October, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
1710WP2389&2604.09-Judgment 1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 2389 OF 2009
PETITIONER :- Naresh S/o Labhchand Taori, aged about 59
years, Occu.-Retired, R/o. Siddheshwar
Prasad Colony, Near Motinagar, Nagpur.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) New India Assurance Company Ltd.,
Through its Chairman and Managing
ig Director, 87, MG Road, Fort, Mumbai.
2) New India Assurance Company Ltd., through
its Chief Regional Manager, Dr. Ambedkar
Bhawan, 4th Floor, High Land Rise, Seminary
Hills, Nagpur.
3) The Government of India, Ministry of
Finance (Department of Financial Services),
Insurance Division, New Delhi.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.B. G. Kulkarni, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.A.J.Pophaly, counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRIT PETITION NO. 2604 OF 2009
PETITIONER :- Shamsunder S/o Sitaramji Khadloya, aged
about 53 years, Occu.-Retired, R/o. AT Post
Bajoria Nagar, Yeotmal.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) New India Assurance Company Ltd.,
Through its Chairman and Managing
Director, 87, MG Road, Fort, Mumbai.
2) New India Assurance Company Ltd., through
its Chief Regional Manager, Dr. Ambedkar
Bhawan, 4th Floor, High Land Rise, Seminary
Hills, Nagpur.
::: Uploaded on - 18/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/10/2016 00:42:37 :::
1710WP2389&2604.09-Judgment 2/3
3) The Government of India, Ministry of
Finance (Department of Financial Services),
Insurance Division, New Delhi.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.B. G. Kulkarni, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.A.J.Pophaly, counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.
DATED : 17.10.2016
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A. Naik, J.)
By these writ petitions, the petitioners seek a direction against the
respondent No.1 to grant the benefits of the pay revision to the petitioners.
The petitioners were working as Development Officers and they
had opted for voluntary retirement under the special voluntary retirement
scheme.
The petitioners were permitted to so retire under the scheme and
after the petitioners retired, there was a pay revision that was made applicable
for some period before the retirement of the petitioners. Since the pay revision
was made for some period during which the petitioners had worked, after
they retired, the petitioners sought for the benefits of the pay revision. The
respondents, however, declined to pay the same.
Shri Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the petitioners, states that
an issue like the one involved in these petitions came up for consideration
before the various High Courts and the orders of the High Courts were carried
1710WP2389&2604.09-Judgment 3/3
to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has rejected the
claim of the similarly situated employees. It is stated that the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that the employees that had retired under the special voluntary
retirement scheme had received certain other benefits from the respondents
and, therefore, they could not have additionally claimed the benefits of the pay
revision. It is fairly stated that the issue involved in these writ petitions stands
answered against the petitioners in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court dated 07/01/2015 in Transfer Case (Civil) No.48 of 2010 and
others.
In view of the statements made on behalf of the petitioners and for
the reasons recorded in the judgment dated 07/01/2015 in Transfer Case
(Civil) No.48 of 2016 and others, the writ petitions are dismissed with no order
as to costs. Rule stands discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
