Devdas S/O Bhaiyalal Dahat vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 11878 Bom

        24-wp-357-21(j).odt                                        1/6


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY


                               NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR


                           WRIT PETITION NO. 357 OF 2021


                 Devdas s/o Bhaiyalal Dahat,
                 a/a 62 yrs., occ. Retired,
                 r/o. Kumbhare Nagar,
                 Gondia, Tah. and Dist. Gondia.          ..... PETITIONER


                                   // VERSUS //

        1.       The State of Maharashtra
                 through the Secretary,
                 Rural Development Department,
                 Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

        2.       The State of Maharashtra
                 through the Secretary,
                 Water Supply Department,
                 Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

        3.       The Zilla Parishad, Gondia, Dist. Gondia,
                 through its Chief Executive Officer.

        4.       The Chief Accountant and Finance Officer,
                 Zilla Parishad, Gondia, Dist. Gondia.

        5.       The Executive Engineer,
                 Rural Water Supply Department,
                 Zilla Parishad Gondia, Dist. Gondia..... RESPONDENTS


        =-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
        Shri V.R. Borkar, Advocate for petitioner.
        Shri A.A. Madiwale, A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 and 2
        Shri Anoop Parihar, Advocate for respondent No.3 and 5
        =-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
                                    CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
                                            ANIL S.KILOR, JJ.

24-wp-357-21(j).odt 2/6

DATED : 26th August, 2021.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : Sunil B. Shukre, J.)

Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard

finally by consent of the parties.

3. The case of the petitioner is that after the order

passed on 7th November, 1996, upto which the petitioner was

a daily wager employee of respondent no.3, the petitioner

became an employee on Converted Regular Temporary

establishment (CRT) of respondent no.3 and therefore,

became entitled to receive all the pensionary benefits in terms

of Kalelkar Settlement upon completion of 10 years of service

on a converted establishment.

4. The petitioner submits that he had already

completed 10 years of his converted service and therefore he

is entitled to receive the pensionary benefits on attaining his

retirement, which he did on 30 th June, 2016, by virtue of his

reaching the age of superannuation.

5. The petitioner, however, has not been paid any

pensionary benefits so far. Although, respondent nos. 1 and 2

have not filed any reply in the matter, our attention has been

24-wp-357-21(j).odt 3/6

drawn by the learned Assistant Government Pleader to the

communication dated 1st December, 1995 (Page No.49) and

Office Note dated 4th January, 1996 (Page 53) which indicate

that the entire powers to take decision in such matters right

from the bringing a daily wager on CRT till payment of the

retiral benefits are exclusively with the concerned Zilla

Parishad and therefore, any issues arising out of such

conversion of the employment, must be decided by the

concerned Zilla Parishad.

6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader therefore

submits that ultimately, it is for the respondent no.3 to decide

the matter appropriately in the light of these communications.

7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader also

invites our attention to Government Resolution dated 6th

September, 1990 where in paragraphs 2 and 3, it has been

laid down that after bringing the daily wager on regular

establishment, it shall be the responsibility of the concerned

Zilla Parishad to make payment of salary as per the regular

pay scale and also of pensionary benefits out of the funds

allocated to Zilla Parishad and the Government would not

release any grant for that purpose.

24-wp-357-21(j).odt 4/6

8. So, the aforestated communication, Government

resolutions and Office Note make it very clear that in such

matters, the entire responsibility lies with the concerned Zilla

Parishad and it is for the Zilla Parishad to discharge the

liability, which would arise after conversion of the daily

wagers into regular temporary employees.

9. Such responsibility of respondent no.3, it is seen

from the pension order dated 21th May, 2018 has also been

acknowledged by respondent no.3, when it issued a pension

payment order in favour of the petitioner and made it clear

that the pension would be paid pension from the funds

provided to Zilla Parishad. However, suddenly, thereafter,

respondent no.3 approached the State Government for

making available additional funds in order to discharge its

liability towards the payment of pension to such temporary

converted employees, citing financial crunch and the proposal

sent by the respondent no.3 to the State Government in this

regard was rejected by the State Government. The reason

stated for such rejection in the communication dated 24 th

October, 2020 may not be in accordance with the aforestated

Government Resolution. But, the fact remains that the

proposal of the respondent no.3 for making available

24-wp-357-21(j).odt 5/6

additional funds has been turned down by the State

Government.

10. When the Government Resolution dated 6th

September, 1990 (Paragraphs 2 and 3) makes it very clear

that the entire responsibility and liability in such matters shall

be of Zilla Parishad and the Zilla Parishad would have to

discharge its liability by banking upon the funds allocated to

it, there is no reason for any Zilla Parishad to make any

request to the State Government for allocation of additional

funds for discharge of such a liability. Therefore, the proposal

sent by respondent no.3 in the present matter was, in our

opinion, misconceived and it ought not to have been sent by

it. In such a case, respondent no.3 ought to have discharged

its liability strictly in accordance with the guidelines laid

down in Government Resolution dated 6th September, 1990

and also the communication dated 1st December, 1995 and the

Office Note dated 4th January, 1996, which he has failed to do

so. In fact, the pension payment order dated 21st May 2018

also does not say anything about non-availability of funds and

need for approaching the State Government for release of

additional funds.

24-wp-357-21(j).odt 6/6

11. In view of above, we do not think that the

rejection of proposal of the Zilla Parishad by the State

Government can be faulted with for any reason and we think

that the fault lies only at the door of respondent no.3.

12. Accordingly, we allow the petition partly and

direct the respondent no.3 to release the amount of pension,

gratuity and other benefits, as per the pension sanction order

dated 21st May, 2018 together with arrears, alongwith interest

@ 6 % per annum from the date the pension became payable

till its actual payment within a period of four months from the

date of the order.

13. Rule accordingly.

                        JUDGE                                         JUDGE
  sknair