Bombay High Court
State Of Mah. Thr. Its Principal ... vs Krushnarao Punjaji Gawande And ... on 9 June, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
WP 1748/13 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 1748/2013
1. State of Maharashtra,
through its Principal Secretary,
Department of Higher and Technical Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Department of Finance,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
3. Director of Higher and Technical Education,
3, Mahapalika Marg, Fort, Mumbai-1. PETITIONERS
.....VERSUS.....
1. Krushnarao Punjaji Gawande,
Aged about 74 yrs,
R/o Plot No.7, visawa Colony,
Camp Amravati.
2. Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal,
Nagpur. RESPONDENTS
Shri I.J. Damle, Assistant Government Pleader for the petitioner.
Shri B.G. Kulkarni, counsel for the respondent no.1.
CORAM :SMT.VASANTI A NAIK AND
A.D. UPADHYE, JJ.
9 JUNE, 2017.
DATE : TH
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT.VASANTI A NAIK, J.)
By this writ petition, the petitioners-The State of Maharashtra
& Others challenge the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal,
Nagpur, dated 02.11.2012 allowing an original application filed by the
respondent no.1 and directing the petitioners to revise the pension of the
respondent no.1 by considering his qualifying service from 24.09.1960 till
his date of retirement on 30.11.1994.
WP 1748/13 2 Judgment
2. Few facts giving rise to the petition are stated thus:-
The respondent was appointed in the State of Madhya
Pradesh in the Government Polytechnic at Ujjain on 24.09.1960 as a
Lecturer. The respondent no.1 continued to work in the said college
when he was sent on deputation to Pune on 05.09.1962 and after the
completion of deputation on 05.09.1965, he rejoined the service at
Reewa. The respondent no.1 was promoted as a Reader and worked in
Government Engineering College, Bilaspur till 19.08.1969. The
respondent no.1 was then transferred to Jabalpur and worked there till
03.12.1970. Thus, the respondent no.1 had rendered services in the State
of Madhya Pradesh for nearly ten years. The respondent no.1 then
applied for the post of Professor, as per the advertisement of Maharashtra
Public Service Commission and was appointed as a Professor in
Government College of Engineering at Karad after resigning his job at
Jabalpur, on 03.12.1970. Without any break, the respondent no.1 joined
his duties at Karad on 04.12.1970. The respondent no.1 was then
transferred to the college at Amravati and retired from the said college on
attaining the age of superannuation on 30.11.1994. While granting the
pensionery benefits to the respondent no.1, the petitioners were not ready
to reckon the services that were rendered by the respondent no.1 in the
State of Madhya Pradesh. Being aggrieved by the action on the part of
the petitioners, the respondent no.1 filed the original application before
the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. The Maharashtra
WP 1748/13 3 Judgment
Administrative Tribunal allowed the original application filed by the
respondent no.1 and directed the petitioners to consider the services
rendered by the respondent no.1 from 24.09.1960 till 30.11.1994 as
qualifying service for grant of pensionery benefits. The order of the
Tribunal is challenged by the petitioners in the instant petition.
3. Shri Damle, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the Tribunal was not
justified in allowing the original application filed by the respondent
no.1. It is submitted that the Tribunal erroneously relied on the
Government Resolution, dated 04.04.1983 which would not apply
to the employees like the petitioner. It is submitted that the
Government Resolution dated 04.04.1983 operated in a different field
inasmuch as it was applicable to the Central Government employees that
had rendered services in the State of Madhya Pradesh and had
subsequently served in the State of Maharashtra. It is submitted that by
erroneously considering the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court,
the Tribunal has allowed the original application filed by the respondent
no.1.
4. Shri Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the respondent
no.1, submitted that the issue involved in this case stands answered
in favour of the respondent no.1 by the judgment of the
WP 1748/13 4 Judgment
Hon'ble Supreme Court and by two judgments of this Court. It is
submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering a matter of
a similarly circumstanced employee like the respondent no.1, in the
case of Madhukar Versus State of Maharashtra & Others in Civil
Appeal NO.4470 of 2014 has held by relying on the Government
Resolution dated 11.03.1992 that the said employee would be entitled
to seek the benefit of the services rendered by him in the State of
Madhya Pradesh for about ten years from 1950 to 1960 for the purpose
of computation of his pension. It is submitted that the facts involved in
the said decision are similar to the facts involved in the present case
and this Court has, by relying on the said judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court as also the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition
No.4234 of 2014, dated 23.02.2015 allowed Writ Petition No.1484 of
2011 by the judgment dated 21.10.2016. It is submitted that this Court
had only directed the petitioner in the said case to refund the amount
received by him towards Provident Fund contribution from the State of
Madhya Pradesh to the State of Maharashtra within a time frame. It is
stated that the respondent no.1 would also refund the amount received by
him towards Provident Fund contribution benefits from the State of
Madhya Pradesh to the Government of Maharashtra.
5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a
perusal of the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the
WP 1748/13 5 Judgment
respondent no.1, we find much force in the submission made on behalf of
the respondent no.1 that the issue involved in this case is no more res
integra and stands answered in favour of the respondent no.1 by the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and a couple of judgments of this
Court. The judgments of this Court that are referred to hereinabove as
also the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court would apply to the case
in hand with full force as the facts involved in those decided cases and the
present case are almost identical. In those cases also, some services were
rendered by the employees in the State of Madhya Pradesh before they
secured employment in the State of Maharashtra. In some of the cases,
even the short break in their services was condoned. In the present case,
there is no question of condonation of break in service, inasmuch as the
respondent no.1 had resigned from the service in the State of Madhya
Pradesh on 03.12.1970 and had joined the services in the State of
Maharashtra at Karad on 04.12.1970. In the circumstance of the case, it
would be necessary to dismiss the writ petition by upholding the order of
the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. Though the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal did not have an opportunity to consider the
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court that are relied on
by the learned counsel for the respondent no.1, the ultimate conclusion
that was reached by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal is
absolutely just and proper and calls for no interference.
WP 1748/13 6 Judgment
6. Since the judgment of the Tribunal is just and proper, we
dismiss the writ petition with no order as to costs. While dismissing the
writ petition, we direct the respondent no.1 to refund the amount
received by the respondent no.1 towards Provident Fund contribution
from the State of Madhya Pradesh after his retirement, to the State of
Maharashtra within six weeks.
Order accordingly. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
APTE
