Vijay Ganpat Pimple vs The Thane Municipal Corporation, ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 1085 Bom

ssm                                                                        1                 46-wp5000.14.sxw

               IN THE  HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                                  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                               WRIT PETITION NO. 5000 OF 2014

Vijay Ganpat Pimple                                                                     ....Petitioner.

                      Vs.

The Thane Municipal Corporation & Ors.                                                  ....Respondents. 

Mr. Yogendra Pendse for the Petitioner.
Mr. Mandar Limaye for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Mr. N.C. Walimbe, AGP for Respondent No. 4.

                                 CORAM  :  ANOOP V. MOHTA AND
                                              RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ.

DATE : 27 MARCH 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER ANOOP V. MOHTA):-

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

Heard finally by consent of the parties.

2. The Petitioner, based upon the advertisement and the

recruitment, worked uninterruptedly as a legal Assistant with

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, since 1997. Though there was a issue that

the Petitioner has not appeared in the Court as per the recruitment

and service conditions, till the date of retirement, there was no such

objection received to the extent of withholding of his monetary claim

ssm 2 46-wp5000.14.sxw

and all other pensionary benefits. The Petitioner has been getting the

salary uninterruptedly till the date of his retirement. The Petitioner's

prayer clause to claim the pension on the basis of pay-scale, actually

drawn by the Petitioner with interest at the rate of 12% on unpaid

amount, in our view, required to be granted, specifically in the

background that the entitlement of pension comes based upon the

retirement rules and on the foundation of last drawn salary.

3. The Respondents, in additional affidavit dated 29 August

2016, endorsed that MCSR (Pension) Rules are applicable. This

undisputed position, therefore, in our view, in the facts and

circumstances of the case is sufficient to consider the case of the

Petitioner, as his pensionary benefits cannot be curtailed and/or taken

away, merely for non-compliance of any formalities, so stated above,

basically after his retirement. The aspect of the relaxation of

recruitment rules should have been taken care of, at the time of

appointment and/or at least immediately thereafter.

4. However, having permitted the Petitioner and as the

Petitioner, as recorded, has completed his unblemished service, we see

ssm 3 46-wp5000.14.sxw

there is no reason to deny the pensionary benefits, which the

Petitioner is otherwise entitled. Neither there is a justification, which

is sufficient to accept the case of the Respondents nor there is any

communication denying the pension claims, so prayed by the

Petitioner.

5. Therefore, taking an overall view of the matter and as

withholding of such pension itself is unacceptable situation, in the

interest of justice and to strike a balance, we are directing that the

Petitioner be paid the pension and/or arrears of pension, if any, from 1

March 2013 with interest @ 6% p.a. as early as possible.

6. Writ Petition is allowed. Rule made absolute, accordingly.

No costs.

   (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)                                                      (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)