Bombay High Court
Vijay Rajabhau Chincholkar vs State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 23 March, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp1969.13.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.1969/2013
PETITIONER: Vijay Rajabhau Chincholkar,
Aged about 63 years, Occ. Retired,
R/o. 17, Vidya Vihar, Pratap Nagar,
Nagpur - 440022.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Maharashtra, Through its
Secretary, Water Resources Department,
Mantralaya Mumbai - 32.
2. Chief Engineer,
Water Resources Department,
Sinchan Seva Bhavan, Camp Amravati.
3. Accountant General (A & E) - II,
Maharashtra Civil Lines, Nagpur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri S.A. Marathe, Advocate for petitioner
Shri D.P. Thakare, Addl. G.P. for respondents
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, AND
V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : 23.03.2017
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of
the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, dated 4.1.2013 dismissing the
original application filed by the petitioner.
wp1969.13.odt
The petitioner's date of birth is 25.8.1950. A departmental
enquiry was initiated against the petitioner while he was working with the
Water Resources Department on 28.2.2005. During the pendency of the
proceedings, the petitioner was compulsorily retired on 28.4.2005 when
he was about 54 years of age. The petitioner was exonerated of the
charges levelled against him in the departmental enquiry on 8.1.2010.
Thereafter, on 17.2.2010, the petitioner submitted an application for
commutation of pension in Form -A appended to the Maharashtra Civil
Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1984. The respondent -
Accountant General issued the orders sanctioning the commutation of
pension amounting to Rs.4,17,438/- in favour of the petitioner. The
petitioner was dissatisfied with the calculation of the commutation of the
amount of pension and therefore he filed an original application before
the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal for a direction that the pension
should be commuted from the date on which he was compulsorily retired
from service and not from the date on which he had tendered the
application in Form - A for commutation of pension. The original
application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Tribunal.
Shri Marathe, the learned Counsel for the petitioner
submitted that since the petitioner was exonerated in the departmental
enquiry on 8.1.2010, after the petitioner applied for commutation of his
wp1969.13.odt
pension in Form - A, the commuted value of pension should have been
granted with effect from the date of his compulsory retirement and not
from the date on which he applied for commutation of pension. It is
submitted that the Tribunal did not consider the matter in the right
perspective while dismissing the original application filed by the
petitioner. It is further stated that the Resolution of the Finance
Department of the Government of Maharashtra, dated 30.5.1988 would
support the case of the petitioner.
On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of the
respondents by the learned Additional Government Pleader that the
Tribunal has rightly dismissed the original application filed by the
petitioner by referring to Rules 4, 6, 8, 12 and 13 of the Maharashtra Civil
Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules. It is submitted that a
Government servant against whom a departmental or judicial proceedings
is pending would not be entitled to commute a fraction of his provisional
pension or his pension, as the case may be during the pendency of the
proceedings. It is submitted that the proceedings initiated against the
petitioner culminated on 8.1.2010 and since the petitioner applied in
Form -A on 17.2.2010 for commutation of his pension, the pension of the
petitioner was rightly commuted in accordance with the Rules and an
amount of Rs.4,17,438/- is released in favour of the petitioner towards
wp1969.13.odt
the commuted value of pension. It is submitted that on a combined
reading of Rules 4 and 13 of the Rules, it is clear that the claim of the
petitioner to commute the pension by considering his date of retirement
as 28.4.2005, is liable to be rejected.
On a reading of the relevant Rules and the order of the
Tribunal, it appears that there is no scope for interference with the
impugned order, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. It is apparent from a
reading of Rule 4 of the Rules that a Government Servant against whom a
departmental or judicial proceedings is pending is not entitled to
commute a fraction of his provisional pension or his pension, as the case
may be during the pendency of such proceedings. The petitioner was
compulsorily retired from service on 28.4.2005, however, the
departmental enquiry continued against him till he was exonerated on
8.1.2010. The petitioner then applied for commuting the pension in
Form-A and the respondents rightly granted the commuted value of the
pension to the petitioner, by considering the date on which he had
applied. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has not pointed out any
Rule in the Rules of 1984 that provides for the commutation of the
pension by considering the date on which the petitioner is compulsorily
retired from service despite repeated query in that regard. The reliance
placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on the Resolution, dated
wp1969.13.odt
30.5.1988 is not well founded as the said Government Resolution is not
relevant for deciding the question involved in this writ petition. Since, no
fault could be found with the order of the Tribunal, the writ petition is
liable to be dismissed.
Hence, we dismiss the writ petition with no order as to
costs. Rule stands discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
