Bombay High Court
Devdas S/O Bhaiyalal Dahat vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ... on 3 August, 2021
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Anil S. Kilor
1 W.P.No.357.2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 357 OF 2021
Devdas S/o Bhaiyalal Dahat,
..VS..
The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai and Ors.,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri R. K. Borkar, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri A. A. Madiwale, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 & 2.
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.
DATED : 03.08.2021
Heard.
2. The contention of the petitioner is that earlier he
was engaged as a daily-wager but, after the order dated
07.11.1996, he became an employee on Converted
Regular Temporary Establishment (CRTE) and thus
became entitled for getting the benefit of "Kalelkar
Settlement" upon completion of his 10 years of service
upon such converted establishment. The petitioner
submits that his case is squarely covered by the view
taken by the other Division Bench of this Court in Writ
Petition No.2883 of 1992 in the case of Sudhakar
Gangaram Gunjatkar Vs. Zilla Parishad, Nanded which
was followed by learned Single Judge in the case of Zilla
Parishad, Nanded through C.E.O. Vs. State of
Maharashtra and Anr., decided on 08.05.2018. He also
submits that his case is also squarely covered by the
judgment in the case of Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad and
Anr., Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr., 2017(2) Mh.L.J.
837. It is the further submission of the petitioner that
similarly situated employees have been granted benefit
of Kalelkar Settlement and Pension Scheme has been
made applicable to them.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner is pressing for
early final hearing on the ground that the petitioner is
suffering from last five years since his retirement for
want of pension.
4. Shri Madiwale, learned A.G.P., seeks further time
for filing his reply in the matter.
although, their reply is already filed on the record. The
paragraph No.8 of the reply reads as under :-
"8. It is submitted that, as stated in the petition,
the respondent Zilla Parishad has granted
pensionary benefits to Shri Sarasram Nathuji
Patle and Raghunath Somaji Bahire from the 19-
pensionary benefits Head/account. It is, however,
submitted that since the government has rejected
the aforementioned proposal submitted by the
Zilla Parishad in respect of the petitioner, he
could not be paid the pensionary benefits".
It would be clear that while Zilla Parishad, Gondia is
ready and willing to pay the pension to the petitioner,
the State Government is not. In these circumstances, it
would be necessary for the State to file its reply as early
as possible.
6. On the next date, the petition is likely to be taken
up for final disposal.
Stand over after three weeks.
JUDGE JUDGE
Kirtak
