Bombay High Court
Kum Rashmi Ravindrasingh Chouhan vs State Of Maharashtra, Department ... on 8 June, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
0806WP6496.13-Judgment 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6496 OF 2013
PETITIONER :- Kum Rashmi Ravindrasingh Chouhan, Aged
about 60 years, Occu.-Retired, Resident of
Suraj Nagar, Digras, Tahsil- Digras, District-
Yavatmal.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1. State of Maharashtra, Department of
Education, Through its Principal Secretary,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. Deputy Director of Education, Amravati
Division, Office of the Deputy Director of
Education, Amravati.
3. Education Officer (Secondary), Education
Department, Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal.
4. Uttar Bhartiya Mandal, Digrus, Taluka-
Digrus, Districdt Yavatmal, through its
President Shri Bajrangi Charanji Ojha.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. U. A. Patil, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.D. P. Thakre, Addl.Govt.Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
None for the respondent No.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
ARUN D. UPADHYE
, JJ.
DATED : 08.06.2017
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A Naik, J.)
By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the
order of the Deputy Director of Education, Amravati, dated 10/09/2012
0806WP6496.13-Judgment 2/5
rejecting the claim of the petitioner for absorption under the provisions
of Rule 25A of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools
(Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 and further rejecting her claim for
fixation of proper pay scale and grant of interest on the delayed
payments.
2. The petitioner was appointed as an assistant teacher on
02/06/1979 and continued to work as such till she was promoted as a
headmistress vide order dated 19/07/1988. According to the petitioner,
though the fifth pay commission recommendations were applicable to
the post of the head, the petitioner was not granted the benefit of the
said recommendations. The respondent No.4-school in which the
petitioner was working was de-recognised on 02/05/2005. The
petitioner applied for her absorption in some other school. Since her
claim was not considered, the petitioner filed a writ petition in the year
2011 for a direction against the respondents to absorb her in some
other school and grant her salary in the appropriate pay scale as per the
recommendations of the fifth pay commission. The writ petition was
partly allowed and the Deputy Director of Education was directed to
decide the claim of the petitioner. The Deputy Director of Education
has rejected the claim of the petitioner by the impugned order dated
10/09/2012.
3. When this petition came up for hearing on 21/07/2014,
we had found that the petitioner would be entitled to the retirement
0806WP6496.13-Judgment 3/5
benefits by considering that she had retired from service on the date on
which the school was de-recognised on 02/05/2005. We had observed
so, as though the school was de-recognised on 02/05/2005 the
petitioner had not approached this court or any other judicial forum for
seeking her absorption in some other school till she filed the earlier
petition in the year 2011. The petitioner has attained the age of
superannuation and was not absorbed in any other school after
02/05/2005. Hence, we had observed in the order dated 21/07/2014
that the petitioner would be entitled to pensionary benefits by
considering her services till 02/05/2005. We had directed the State
Government to make a statement as to why the petitioner should not be
granted the retiral benefits by considering her services from 1979 to
2005 and as to why her pay should not be fixed in terms of the
recommendations of the fifth pay commission.
4. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 have filed an affidavit-in-
reply that is favourable to the petitioner. It is stated in the affidavit-in-
reply filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 that the petitioner
can apply for compensation pension under the Compensation Pension
Scheme as per rule 81 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension)
Rules, 1982. It is admitted by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 that the
petitioner would be entitled to pay fixation as per the recommendations
of the fifth pay commission, as the petitioner had worked till
02/05/2005 in the school, till it was de-recognised.
0806WP6496.13-Judgment 4/5
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that since this
court had restricted the relief in the petition, pertaining to the grant of
pensionary benefits, by considering the petitioner's services till 2005
and for granting the salary to the petitioner as per the recommendations
of the fifth pay commission till she worked in the school, by the order
dated 21/07/2014, the grievance of the petitioner would stand
redressed in view of the statements made by the respondent Nos.2 and
3 in their affidavit-in-reply. It is stated that the petitioner would apply
for compensation pension as per rule 81 of the Maharashtra Civil
Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. It is stated that a direction be issued to
the respondents to pay the arrears of salary as per the recommendations
of the fifth pay commission to the petitioner within a time frame, as
they have agreed to pay the same.
6. In the circumstances of the case, since the respondent
Nos.2 and 3 have admitted that the petitioner could apply for
compensation pension under rule 81 of the Maharashtra Civil Services
(Pension) Rules, 1982 and the petitioner would also be entitled to the
salary as per the recommendations of the fifth pay commission till she
worked in the school, it would be necessary to dispose of the writ
petition by issuing certain directions against the respondents. Since the
petitioner would have been normally entitled to be absorbed in some
other school as per rule 25A of the Maharashtra Employees of Private
Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, in the peculiar facts and
0806WP6496.13-Judgment 5/5
circumstances of the case, it would be necessary for the respondents to
grant compensation pension to the petitioner as per rule 81 of the Rules
of 1982 by considering that the petitioner has retired from service on
02/05/2005.
7. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly
allowed. The respondents are directed to grant the compensation
pension in favour of the petitioner after the petitioner applies for the
same as per rule 81 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules,
1982. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the requisite
application for seeking compensation pension would be made within
two months to the Education Officer. If the application is so made, the
Education Officer would forward it to the appropriate authority for
grant of compensation pension. The respondents should take a decision
on the application of the petitioner within two months from the date of
receipt of the application and start releasing the compensation pension
in favour of the petitioner within two months from the date of the
decision. The respondents are directed to pay the arrears of salary to
the petitioner as per the recommendations of the fifth pay commission,
within three months. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with
no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
