Bombay High Court
Laxmibai Genuji Ghagre vs State Of Mah & Ors on 3 October, 2017
Bench: S.P. Deshmukh
1 35WP2381-05
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
WRIT PETITION NO. 2381 OF 2005
Smt.Laxmibai w/o. Genuji Ghagre,
aged 67 years, occu - Nil,
(through her General Power of Attorney
Chandrashekhar s/o. Genuji Gharge,
aged 35 years, occu - business,
r/o. Puntamba, Tq.Kopargaon,
(Now Rahata), District Ahmednagar). ...Petitioner
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
(through its Secretary, School
Education Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai).
2. The Deputy Director of Education,
Pune.
3. The Zilla Parishad,
(through its Chief Executive Officer)
Ahmednagar.
4. The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar.
5. The Bombay Conference of the Methodist
Church in Southern Asia (through its
Secretary Shri.N.L.Karkare), 22 Y.M.C.A. Road,
::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2017 00:31:06 :::
2 35WP2381-05
Methodist Centre, Bombay Central,
Bombay 8.
6. The Head Mistress,
Methodist Primary School,
Puntamba Taluka Rahata,
District Ahmednagar.
7. The Manager,
Methodist Mission,
Puntamba Taluka Rahata,
District Ahmednagar.
8. The Accountant General (A&E)-I,
Maharashtra-101,
Maharshi Karve Marg, Mumbai-400 020. ...Respondents
----
Mr. Kiran M. Nagarkar, Advocate for
Petitioner.
Mr.Shashibhushan P.Deshmukh, Assistant
Government Pleader for Respondents
No. 1, 2 and 8.
Mr.S.S.Wagh h/f Mr.S.T.Shelke Advocate
for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
Mr.T.V. Bedre Advocate h/f Mr.V.S.Bedre, Advocate
for respondents No. 5 to 7.
----
CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATED : 3rd OCTOBER, 2017
::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2017 00:31:06 :::
3 35WP2381-05
JUDGMENT (PER SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.) :
1. The petition has been moved for redetermination of
pension and pensionary benefits of petitioner's husband payable
to her by taking into account service rendered by him during
12-06-1957 to 31-12-1964, in school at Bidar in Karnataka
State. According to the petitioner, her husband had been
transferred from the school at Bidar on 12-06-1965 to Methodist
Primary School at Puntamba, (Now Rahata), Dist. Ahmednagar.
2. Petitioner's husband retired as Headmaster on
31-05-1990. According to the petitioner, her husband had died
without receipt of any pension and pensionary benefits. The
petitioner had moved a writ petition bearing No.3711 of 2002 for
pension and pensionary benefits due and payable to her husband
and after him to her. The High Court had, under its order dated
08-01-2003, directed to consider the petitioner's case and take a
decision thereon.
3. It appears, the case of the petitioner had been
processed and pension and pensionary benefits had been
granted. However, according to the petitioner, those are
deficient, since the service rendered by her husband in
Karnataka State has not been taken into account for
computation of pension. Learned counsel for the petitioner
4 35WP2381-05
submits that if said period is computed for pension and
pensionary benefits payable to the husband of the Petitioner, it
would increase the amount of pension and pensionary benefits
as would be due and payable to her husband and after him to
her.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits
that there are several instances, wherein, on transfer of an
incumbent from other State to Maharashtra, such period has
been computed for the purpose of grant of pension and
pensionary benefits. He purports to state that one
Smt. P.C.Pandit has received such benefits. He, therefore, urges
to consider the request and allow the benefit of the said period
from 1957 to 1965 for the purposes of computation of pension
and pensionary benefits being given to the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 - Zilla
Parishad, Ahmednagar submits that as a matter of fact, after the
order had been passed in Writ Petition No.3711 of 2002, a
proposal had been forwarded with computation of the period
from 1957 to 1965 in Form No.15. However, Accountant
General, Mumbai had not taken the same into consideration
since service rendered by employee in Karnataka State is not
admissible in Maharashtra State for the purpose of grant of
5 35WP2381-05
pension. Further, Government of Maharashtra has also given
instructions to the Director of Education and all other authorities
that services rendered by employees outside the State are not
qualifying services for pensionary benefits.
6. It is further submitted that dues, exclusive of
service in Karnataka State, are paid to the petitioner including
issuance of no dues certificate.
7. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 5 to 7 as well
submits that proposal had been forwarded for computing the
period of service from 1957 to 1965, however, the proposal had
been accepted excluding said period.
8. The learned counsel for respondents submitted that
time to procure material in support of averments in writ petition
had been sought and the petitioner has not been able to place
on record anything in support of the argument.
9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Deshmukh
appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1, 2 and 8 submits that
the matter of such computation has been taken into
consideration by the Education Officer, Pay and Provident Fund
Unit (Primary), Private Primary School, Ahmednagar, wherein, it
was intimated that the case can be considered in revision on
receipt of necessary clarification. Relying on the affidavit filed on
6 35WP2381-05
behalf of the Zilla Parishad, he submits that it appears that
Maharashtra State does not consider and accept the services
rendered by employees outside the State for the purpose of
computation of pension in Maharashtra. He submits that the
Government authorities accordingly have declined the proposal
of pension and pensionary benefits payable computing service in
Karnataka State. He submits that the pensionary benefits as are
due and payable according to the rules and regulations, were
calculated and pay orders were issued and amounts have been
paid accordingly. He, as such, submits that writ petition does not
carry any substance and deserves to be dismissed.
10. The petitioner has not been able to take beyond the
realm of averment and submissions, the case of Smt. Pandit.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
averments made in the petition, have gone un-controverted in
the affidavit filed by the respondents and as such his argument
deserves to be accepted.
11. The petitioner was given time on quite a few
occasions to secure material to support her contention in respect
of computation of period of service rendered outside the State
for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits payable in
Maharashtra State. Except giving name of Smt. P.C.Pandit, the
7 35WP2381-05
petitioner has not been able to support her claim with any
material. Time sought to secure information, has not yielded
any fruits.
12. No provision of law or service rules for considering
the services rendered outside the State of Maharashtra for
computation of pension and pensionary benefits in the
Maharashtra State have been pointed out.
13. In the circumstances, it would not be proper to go by
unsupported averments in the petition. We are left with no
alternative, in the situation, but to decline the request made
under the petition.
14. Writ petition, as such, is dismissed, accordingly.
Rule stands discharged.
(SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.) (SUNIL. P. DESHMUKH,J)
mta/-
