Bombay High Court
Ghanashyamdas Narayandas ... vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 22 December, 2017
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
Judgment wp2843.02
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 2843 OF 2002.
Ghanshyamdas s/o Narayandas Chandak,
Aged about 69 years, Occupation - Nil,
r/o. Jeewanchhaya Building,
New Ramdas Peth, Nagpur 440 010. ....PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra,
Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.
through its Secretary.
2. The Joint Director,
Higher Education, Nagpur Division,
Nagpur, through its
Administrative Officer. ....RESPONDENTS
.
-----------------------------------
Mr. V.P. Marpakwar, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. V.P. Maldhure, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Respondents.
------------------------------------
CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI &
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : DECEMBER 22, 2017.
Judgment wp2843.02
ORAL JUDGMENT. (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J)
Petitioner who has retired on 31.10.1992 on reaching his age of
superannuation seeks addition of period from 10.07.1956 to 19.06.1964, for
the purposes of computation of his pension.
2. This Court has issued Rule in the matter on 17.10.2002.
Respondents thereafter have not filed any reply-affidavit. In this backdrop,
we have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned A.G.P. appearing on
behalf of respondents attempted to obtain adjournment to file reply.
However, the said request is strongly opposed by learned counsel for the
petitioner. In present situation, when return should have been filed within
a period of 6 weeks of admission of the matter, we have rejected the request
made by learned A.G.P., as it is not supported by any valid reason.
3. According to learned counsel for petitioner, the issue is covered by
adjudication by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Madhukar .vrs. State
of Maharashtra and others (2014 (II) CLR 281). This judgment has been
followed by the Division Bench of this Court while deciding Writ Petition No.
Judgment wp2843.02
4234/2014 on 23.02.2015. Both these judgments have thereafter been
followed while deciding Writ Petition No. 1484/2011 on 21.10.2016 by the
Division Bench of this Court and one of us (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J) is party
to it. He submits that, same law and analogy must apply here.
4. Learned A.G.P. without prejudice to the request rejected above
and with a view to assist the Court, invited our attention to Rule 46 of the
Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 and facts disclosed by the
petitioner himself. He submits that twice petitioner has resigned from
services, and therefore, there is break and service prior to breaks and last
continuous service therefore, cannot be clubbed for calculating qualifying
service. He also submits that the government resolution dated 11.03.1992,
which has been appreciated along with Rule 48 of the Pension Rules, by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has not been produced before this Court by the
petitioner.
5. Facts show that petitioner worked as Lecturer in Commerce and
his service in Madhya Pradesh have been accepted as continuous from
10.07.1956. He was transferred by Madhya Pradesh Government on
23.11.1963 to Government Degree College, Seoni (M.P.), where he
continued till 18.06.1964. It is claimed that he resigned from that
Judgment wp2843.02
government service w.e.f. 19.06.1964, and said resignation was accepted
and he was relieved on 19.06.1964. Petitioner also claimed that on next day
i.e. 20.06.1964, he joined as Principal at Suwalal Patni Arts and Commerce
College, Pulgaon, District Wardha and worked there till 10.05.1967. He
resigned from that post and joined as Principal at Nabira Mahavidyalaya,
Katol on 12.06.1967, where he continued till his superannuation on
31.10.1992.
6. Assertion by petitioner that services rendered by him in
Maharashtra from 20.06.1964 till 31.10.1992 has been accepted and
counted as qualifying service for computing pension, has remained un-
rebutted. The provisions of Rule 46, in this situation cannot save the
situation for respondents. Service rendered by petitioner before joining at
Katol has been accepted and treated as continuous one by them.
7. Identical situation has been looked into in all the three judgments
mentioned supra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also has in similar facts
clubbed service of employee in Madhya Pradesh with his services in
Maharashtra for the purpose of pension. That view of Hon'ble Supreme
Court has then followed in later two judgments by two Division Benches of
this Court. We therefore, need not dilate on those judgments.
Judgment wp2843.02
8. Here, in view of those judgments, we find that services rendered
by the petitioner in State of Madhya Pradesh from 10.07.1956 upto
19.06.1964 need to be added to his period of qualifying service. Accordingly
by adding that period to his qualifying service, his pension needs to be
determined, and arrears to be worked out on that basis, therefore, need to
be made over to him.
9. He has been superannuated on 31.10.1992 and has approached
this Court in writ jurisdiction on 30.07.2002. Petitioner has annexed
representation moved by him in the years 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000 which
show efforts made by him to get his grievance redressed. On 04.02.2000,
he was informed that his service in Madhya Pradesh cannot be considered
at all. This was also informed to him earlier by Annexure-VI dated
20.07.1999. Thereafter, petitioner has again submitted a representation on
26.05.2000.
10. In this situation, we deny him interest on arrears so calculated for
the period commencing from the date of his superannuation till the expiry of
period of three years from the date of filing of the petition. Thus, interest of
arrears shall be paid to him from 30.07.2005 onwards at 6% on the amount
Judgment wp2843.02
of arrears, till the arrears are made over to him.
11. Learned A.G.P. at this stage submits that the petitioner may have
worked as a Presiding Officer of College Tribunal for some period thereafter
and may have also earned salary. Hence, while calculating the arrears,
respondent can keep this fact in mind and if the fact is correct, arrears can
be adjusted accordingly.
12. With these directions, Writ Petition is partly allowed. Rule is
made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rgd.
