Mohammad Hanif Mohammad Ibrahim vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 7349 Bom

                                        (1)                              16 wp 8373.16

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                       WRIT PETITION NO. 8373 OF 2016

      Mohammad Hanif Mohammad Ibrahim,
      Age : 69 years, Occ. Retired,
      R/o. Parbhani, Tq. Parbhani,
      District Parbhani.                                     ..       Petitioner

                       Versus

1.    The State of Maharashtra,
      Through its Secretary,
      Agricultural Department,
      Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

2.    The Vasantrao Naik, Marathwada,
      Krushi Vidyapity, Parbhani,
      Through its Registrar.

3.    The In-charge Officer,
      Wheat and Maize Research Unit,
      Vasantrao Naik Marathwada
      Agricultural University, Parbhani.                     ..       Respondents

                                    ----
Mr. Patil Indrale Anand V., Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. M.B. Bharashwadkar, AGP for respondent-State.
Mr. B.A. Shinde, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 and 3.
                                     ---

                                    CORAM :     S.V. GANGAPURWALA &
                                                MANGESH S. PATIL, JJ.

DATE : 20.09.2017

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V. Gangapurwala, J.):-

. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of

parties taken up for final hearing.

(2) 16 wp 8373.16

2. The petitioner is appointed as a Watchman in the year 1976

and is made permanent in the year 1999. The learned counsel submits

that the respondents are not releasing the pensionary benefits to the

petitioner, though, the petitioner has retired on attaining the age of

superannuation in 2007. The learned counsel submits that the service

rendered on temporary basis shall also be computed for the purpose of

pension.

3. Mr. Shinde, the learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3

submits that the petitioner is not entitled for pension, in view of the

introduction of the pension scheme 2005 and the petitioner has not

undergone minimum qualifying service of ten years.

4. The factual matrix is not disputed that the petitioner was

appointed on temporary basis in the year 1976 and was made permanent

in the year 1999 and that the petitioner having attained the age of

superannuation has retired in the year 2007.

5. Rule 57 of the Maharashtra Civil Services Pension Rules would

be relevant for consideration. As per the said rule, the period rendered

on temporary basis has to be counted as half for the purpose of

pensionary benefits. We have considered the similar issuer in writ

(3) 16 wp 8373.16

petition no. 9605/2015 under order dated 17.11.2016, so also the order

passed in writ petition no. 3061/2014 and writ petition no. 7170/2010.

6. In light of the above, we pass the following order.

7. The rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause 'C' except

the prayer of interest therein. The respondents shall complete the

exercise of sending the proposal of the petitioner for grant of pension

within four months. Thereafter the retiral and pensionary benefits as

admissible shall be paid expeditiously. The writ petition is accordingly

disposed of. Rule made absolute accordingly.

[MANGESH S. PATIL, J.] [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]

mub