Bombay High Court
Shri Shrihari Sadashiv Ganvir vs State Of Maharashtra, Through Its ... on 14 March, 2017
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
Judgment wp3031.14
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 3031 OF 2014
WITH CIVIL APPLICATION [W] NO. 512/2017.
Shri Shrihari Sadashiv Ganvir,
Aged about 60 years, Retd.
Assistant Teacher, r/o. At Post
Kurud, Tah. Desaiganj,
District Gadchiroli. ....PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
General Administration Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. Deputy Director of Education,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur.
3. The Education Officer (Secondary)
Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli.
4. Indian Audit and Accounts
Department, Office of the Accountant
General, (Accounts and Entitlements) II,
Pension Wing, old Building, Civil Lines,
Nagpur - 01.
5. Bahuudeshiya Kisan Shikshan Sanstha,
Soni-Chapral, Tahsil Lakhandur,
District Bhandara, through its
Managing Committee Member
Shri Pandhari Mansaram Borkar,
::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2017 00:47:08 :::
Judgment wp3031.14
2
aged about 60 years, resident
of Bus Stand chowk, Lakhandur,
Tah. Lakhandur, District Bhandara. ....RESPONDENTS
.
-----------------------------------
Mr. A.Z. Jibhkate, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. A.M. Kadukar, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 to 4.
Mr. V.V. Patre, Advocate for Respondent No.5.
------------------------------------
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : MARCH 14, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT. (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J)
Heard Shri A.Z. Jibhkate, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Shri
A.M. Kadukar, learned A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Shri V.V.
Patre, learned Counsel for Respondent No.5.
2. Petitioner/applicant aged about 60 years is without any pension or
other benefits and therefore, has approached this Court. His submission is,
his service from academic year 1985-86 needs to be looked into for the
purpose of determination of his entitlement and eligibility to pension and
other benefits.
Judgment wp3031.14
3. Pension is being denied to him on the ground that he has not put
in 10 years of service. The department has computed his service from 1988-
89. The impugned order/communication dated 29.10.2013 points out that
petitioner had approval from 1988 till 1989 for one year. He had no
approval from 1984 to 1987. The Junior College namely Vidya Arts Junior
College lost its recognition on 13.04.1997, and petitioner filed Writ Petition
No. 5462/2007 before this Court. That Writ Petition was decided on
12.02.2011. As per directions of this Court, the Education Officer then
absorbed petitioner in terms of Rule 25-A of the Maharashtra Employees of
Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981. Thus, service of
petitioner from 1997 to 2009 has been totally ignored.
4. Petitioner does not claim that period as service period. Learned
counsel appearing for him specifically submits that period from joining the
service i.e. from 02.07.1984 till the date of termination i.e. 27.07.1989 and
thereafter till the college lost recognition from 13.04.1997 needs to be
clubbed with service rendered by him after absorption i.e. 13.03.2009 upto
his superannuation on 31.08.2011. According to the learned Counsel, this
service entitles petitioner to grant of pension.
Judgment wp3031.14
5. Shri Kadukar, learned A.G.P. submits that there was no approval
to services of petitioner from 1984, as department does not have any records
to verify that aspect.
6. Shri Patre, learned Counsel for respondent no.5 - earlier college
of petitioner, states that petitioner worked with that college from
02.07.1984 onwards.
7. The controversy needs to be looked into in the backdrop of the
judgment delivered by the School Tribunal on 26.07.1996 in Appeal
No.166/1989, filed by the present petitioner. There he challenged
termination order dated 27.07.1989. He pointed out that he was deputed
for summer vacation B.Ed. during 1985-87. The School Tribunal has set
aside that termination order dated 27.07.1989, reinstated petitioner with
consequential benefits of continuity and back wages. The relief granted by
the School Tribunal of continuity, has attained finality, therefore, petitioner
is entitled to credit of service from 27.07.1989 till 30.04.1997. The Deputy
Director of Education, Nagpur Division is party respondent no.4 before the
School Tribunal. Petitioner then relied upon copy of approval order issued
by respondent no.4 on 05.06.1989.
Judgment wp3031.14
8. Perusal of said order reveals that petitioner was given approval for
the year 1988-89 as also administrative powers for looking after the
financial and other affairs of the institution. His qualification is mentioned
as B.Ed. It also mentions that petitioner at that time was shown as employee
on clock hour basis. This has been clarified on 05.06.1989 by the Deputy
Director of Education by deleting those words and mentioning that approval
was of full time employee in the pay scale of Rs. 600-1030.
9. The order of approval dated 19.11.1988 mentions names of two
other employees namely B.S. Nishane and V.D. Ghodichor. Some disputed
questions arise. We are not inclined to go into those questions at this stage.
Petitioner/applicant has produced documents to show that he was in the
employment since 1984. If original records are not available, the
department has to consider whether those documents can be looked into as
a secondary evidence. Petitioner then needs to be given an liberty to request
respondent nos. 2 and 3 to procure consequential documents from other
establishment i.e. establishment where he was studying for obtaining his
B.Ed. qualification in summer vacations. The petition is already admitted for
final hearing. Keeping it pending will not assist the cause of petitioner.
Only disputed issue is - Whether service from 02.07.1984 till 27.07.1989 till
commencement of academic year 1988-89 can be looked into for the
Judgment wp3031.14
purpose of computing qualifying service of petitioner.
10. We therefore grant petitioner leave to make appropriate
application pointing out secondary evidence in his possession,
establishments from which genuineness thereof can be verified. If such
application is moved by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from
today. Respondent no.2 shall then apply his mind to the same and attempt
to obtain corresponding records/clarification from other institutions. If
necessary, record in case of B.S. Nishane and V.D. Ghodichor shall also be
examined to find out credibility of petitioner. This exercise shall be
completed within a period of twelve weeks.
11. Writ Petition is thus partly allowed. Civil Application is also
allowed and disposed of. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with
no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rgd.
