Bombay High Court
Sau.Pramila Krishnarao Deshmukh ... vs State Of Mah & 2 Others on 7 July, 2017
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
1 Judg. wp 2603.04.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
Writ Petition No.2603 of 2004
Sau. Pramila Krishnarao Deshmukh,
Aged about 70 years, Occ.- Retired Teacher,
R/o.-Saurabh Colony, V.M.V. Road, Amravati,
Tq. & Distt. Amravati. .... Petitioner.
-Versus-
1] State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary of Secondary and
Higher Secondary Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2] Deputy Director of Education,
Amravati Division, Amravati
3] Secretary, Shri. Shivaji Education Society,
Morshi Road, Amravati,
Tq. and Distt. Amravati. .... Respondents.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri P.S. Patil, Counsel for petitioner.
Shri V.P. Maldhure, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent
nos. 1 and 2.
Shri Abhay Sambre, Counsel for respondent no.3.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram : R. K. Deshpande &
Mrs. Swapna Joshi, JJ.
Dated : 07 July, 2017
th
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R. K. Deshpande, J.)
2 Judg. wp 2603.04.odt
The petitioner was working as a Junior College Lecturer
during the period 1977-1978 and 1981-1982 in the respondent no.3
Shri Shivaji Arts and Commerce College. The petitioner, thereafter,
substantively worked as such from 23-06-1982 to 30-06-1992. The
claim is for grant of pension on the ground that he has rendered the
qualifying service of 10 years.
2] According to the stand taken by the respondent State
Government, the petitioner suffered shortage of 5 months and 12
days to complete the qualifying service of 10 years. The break in
service of the petitioner from 20-04-1983 to 10-07-1983 and
20-04-1984 to 19-07-1984 was condoned. It is not in dispute that, if
the period of condonation of break is taken into consideration to
count the qualifying service, the petitioner would be entitled to
pension.
3] Shri Maldhure the learned Assistant Government Pleader has
relied upon Rule 48(2) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension)
Rules, 1982, regarding condonation of interruption in service which
is reproduced below :-
"48(2)- The period of interruption condoned under
sub-rule (1) shall not count as qualifying service."
3 Judg. wp 2603.04.odt
4] He submits that the break condoned of the period from
20-04-1983 to 10-07-1983 and 20-04-1984 to 19-07-1984 cannot be
taken into consideration to count the qualifying service of 10 years.
He does not dispute that the State Government had power to
regularize the short period and make the petitioner qualified for
pension under Rule 54 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension)
Rules.
5] The rejection of the claim on 8-4-1999 by the State
Government is on the ground that the proposal was forwarded to it
after lapse of 18 to 19 years to count the service from 1-7-1981 to
20-6-1982 for the purposes of pension.
6] The Management has not filed any reply. The documents filed
on record along with communication to urge that the petitioner was
making efforts from 1992. There is nothing on record to show the
proposal was forwarded to the State Government immediately after
the retirement of the petitioner from service in the year 1992. We
also find that, the petitioner remained silent till the year 1999 to
claim count the service from 1-7-1981 to 20-6-1982. This petition
was filed in the year 2004. In such a situation, we do not find any
reason to direct to the respondent State Government to consider the
question of exercise of powers under Rule 54 of the Maharashtra
4 Judg. wp 2603.04.odt
Civil Services (Pension) Rules for regularization in the period of
qualifying service. In view of above, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
JUDGE JUDGE
Deshmukh
