Bombay High Court
Shankar Supadu Shinde vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 9 February, 2021
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala, Shrikant Dattatray Kulkarni
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 26/02/2021
1 983-wp 2719-2020.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2719 OF 2020
Shankar Supadu Shinde .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Mr. P. S. Shendurnikar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mrs. V. S. Chaudhary, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. Y. B. Bolkar, Advocate for Respondent No. 3.
Mr. S. H. Tripathi, Advocate for Respondent No. 4.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.
DATED : 09th February, 2021.
PER COURT:-
. The petitioner herein is appointed in the year 1996 as a Lecturer
in respondent No. 4 college. He has retired on attaining the age of
superannuation. The contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is
that the petitioner has put in pensionable service. The pension proposal
is denied to him only on the ground that the petitioner did not pass
NET/SET qualification. According to the learned counsel the benefit of
Government Resolution dated 27.06.2013 would be available to the
petitioner and would be entitled for the benefit of pension.
2. Mrs. Chaudhary, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits
1 of 3
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 26/02/2021
2 983-wp 2719-2020.odt
that the Government pursuant to the Government Resolution dated
27.06.2013 has regularized services of those persons appointed
between 23.10.1992 to 03.04.2000 though had not completed
NET/SET but did not allow them regular pensionary benefits. In
Condition No. 18 it has been mentioned that the incumbents are not
eligible and entitled for pensionary benefits and they are eligible for
DCPS.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned A.G.P.
4. The issue involved in the present matter is no longer res-integra
in view of the catena of judgments delivered by this Court. Reference
can be had to the judgment at the Principal Seat in Writ Petition No.
13166/2017 decided vide order dated 03.10.2018. The said judgment
has been followed in various matters.
5. Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, it is also not
disputed by the respondents that the appointment of the petitioner has
been made by due procedure of law and adhering to the selection
process.
6. In light of the above, the impugned communication is quashed
and set aside. The respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner
2 of 3
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 26/02/2021
3 983-wp 2719-2020.odt
for sanction of pension as per rules after verifying the details of the
appointment of the petitioner, the date of retirement and if he has put
in pensionable service, shall accord sanction for pension to the
petitioner.
7. Writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
( SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI ) ( S. V. GANGAPURWALA )
JUDGE JUDGE
P.S.B.
3 of 3
