Manik Bhimraoji Khode vs Accountant General, Nagpur And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 10983 Bom

                                                               14wp2902.2021(j).odt
                                              1/3



              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
                         WRIT PETITION NO. 2902 OF 2021


  Shri Manik Bhimraoji Khode,
  Aged - 60 Years, Occu- Pensioner.
  R/o. Plot No.84, Utkarsha Griha
  Nirman Society, Dabha, Nagpur.                        .... PETITIONER

                         // VERSUS //

  1.              Accountant General,
                  Office of Accountant General
                  (Accounts and Entitlement)-II,
                  Maharashtra, Civil Lines, Nagpur.

  2.              The Education Officer (Sec.),
                  Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.

  3.              Jawaharlal Nehru Vidyalaya
                  and Jr. College, Wadi,
                  Nagpur, through its Headmaster.         .... RESPONDENTS

  Mr. P.N. Shende, Advocate for the petitioner
  Mr. A. S. Fulzele, Addl. GP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
  ________________________________________________________________

                               CORAM :    SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
                                          ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.

DATE : 12.08.2021.

ORAL JUDGMENT: [PER SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.]

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

Addl. Government Pleader for respondent nos.1 and 2, who appears

by waiving notice on their behalf. There is no need to issue any

notice to respondent No.3, as no relief, as such has been claimed

against respondent No.3.

14wp2902.2021(j).odt

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

consent of the parties.

3. The pension case of the petitioner has been only partly

allowed by the respondent No.1. The reason given by the

respondent No.1 for the part rejection of the pension case of the

petitioner is that the period of service which he rendered as Head

Master during the period from 10.07.2010 to 30.06.2019 could not

be treated as qualifying service. The contention of the petitioner is

that during this period of time, he was regularly promoted as a

Head Master and the school was on 100 % grant-in-aid basis and

therefore by no stretch of imagination, the petitioner could have

been treated as newly appointed employee. He further submits that

this position has been clarified by respondent No.3 to respondent

No.1 when it addressed a letter to respondent No.1 on 09.09.2020.

But, respondent no.1 has not so far changed his stand.

4. We find that the clarification dated 09.09.2020 and the

request made therein for review of the impugned decision has not

been considered by the respondent No.1 and it appears that the

review is still pending.

5. We are of the view that purpose of this petition shall be

served if appropriate direction is given to the respondent No.1.

6. In view of the above, the petition is partly allowed.

14wp2902.2021(j).odt

7. The respondent No.1 is directed to take appropriate

decision, in accordance with law, on the communication dated

09.09.2020 sent to him by respondent No.3, within a period of four

weeks from the date of receipt of the order. In case, respondent

No.1 rejects the request for review of its earlier decision, the

rejection shall be supported by specific reasons.

8. Rule made absolute accordingly. No costs.

                       JUDGE                               JUDGE




nd.thawre