Bombay High Court
Mr. Ramesh Rambhau Nigade vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 26 July, 2021
Bench: R.D. Dhanuka, R. I. Chagla
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 03/08/2021
bdp
1
9-wp-65.21.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 65 OF 2021
Mr. Ramesh Rambhau Nigade ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
******
Mr. V. S. Talkute for the Petitioner.
Mr. S. B. Kalel, AGP for the State-Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. Rajendra Anbhule for the Respondent No.3.
******
CORAM: R. D. DHANUKA AND
R. I. CHAGLA, JJ.
DATE : 26th JULY, 2021.
(Through Video Conference)
P.C. :-
. Rule. Learned AGP for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 waives
services. Learned counsel for the respondent no.3 waives service.
Heard finally by consent of parties.
2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner seeks an order and direction against the
respondents to complete the formalities regarding the grant of pension
to the petitioner and for payment of pension to the petitioner as
expeditiously as possible and to pay interest @ 18% on delayed
payment of the pension from the date of the retirement of the petitioner
till realization of the pension along with the arrears.
3. The petitioner was born on 1st June, 1958. On the date of the
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 03/08/2021
bdp
9-wp-65.21.doc
appointment of the petitioner in the year 1989, the petitioner was 31
years old and was overage by three years. The petitioner belongs to
open category.
4. On 5th September, 1994, the petitioner was appointed as a
watchman on a temporary post. On 10th December, 1996, the services
of the petitioner were made permanent after completing his three years
probation period. On 9th May, 2018, the petitioner was informed by the
respondent no.3 of his retirement as per the selected pension scheme.
On 31st May, 2018, the petitioner retired from services after 29 years of
service including five years of temporary service.
5. On 31st May, 2018, the petitioner was informed that the pension
of the petitioner could not be processed in view of objection raised by
the State Government on account of the petitioner being overage. The
petitioner thus filed this petition for various reliefs.
6. Mr. Talkute, learned counsel for the petitioner invited our
attention to various documents annexed to the writ petition and would
submit that the issue raised by the petitioner in this writ petition is no
longer res-integra. He invited our attention to interim order passed by
this Court on 19th May, 2021 and order of this Court dated 14 th April,
2021 in Writ Petition No. 2545 of 2021 filed by Arun A. Prabhudesai
v/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
7. Learned counsel invited our attention to various other judgments
annexed to the writ petition at pages 25 to 37 and would submit that the
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 03/08/2021
bdp
9-wp-65.21.doc
other employees similarly situated and have succeeded on those
petitions. Those judgments apply to the facts of this case.
8. Learned counsel invited our attention to the averments made by
the State Government in paragraph 13 of the affidavit-in-reply and
would submit that even the respondent no.2 in his communication to
the State Government has recommended the decision taken in respect
of the petitioner and similar situated employees of the respondent no.3-
university as early as possible in compliance of the queries raised by
the respondent no.1.
9. Learned AGP on the other hand submits that the petitioner was
overage by eight years. No documents are produced in support of this
submission.
10. This Court in catena of decision already annexed to the writ
petition and the last decision on this issue delivered on 14 th April, 2021
in case of Arun A. Prabhudesai (supra) after referring to earlier
judgments, has held that the objections regarding overage at the time of
appointment could not be sustained for denying pension to the
respective employees. This Court held that since the probation of the
petitioners had been delayed due to no fault of theirs and despite the
law laid down by this Court in catena of decisions, respondent nos. 1
and 2 shall pay the pension and dues of the petitioner with interest @
8% p.a. on the delayed payment of the pension from the date of
receiving the dues and until payment. In our view, the said judgments
annexed to the petition and the judgment in case of Arun A.
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 03/08/2021
bdp
9-wp-65.21.doc
Prabhudesai (supra) apply to the facts of this case. We are respectfully
bound by the said judgments. There is no substance in any of the
submissions made by the learned AGP for the State.
11. We accordingly pass the following order :-
i. Respondents are directed to complete the formalities
relating to release of probation dues of the petitioner within
four weeks from today. The Management shall submit the
requisite papers, if not already submitted to the respondent
for realization the probation dues.
ii. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 to pass appropriate orders and
release the probation dues as expeditiously as possible and
in any event within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of papers from the Management with interest @ 8%
p.a. on the delayed payment of pension from the date of due
date and until payment without fail.
iii. It is made clear that if the dues of the petitioner are not
released within the time prescribed, the amount will carry
interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of expiry of the aforesaid
period until payment.
iv. Writ Petition is disposed off in aforesaid terms. Rule is
made absolute accordingly. There shall be no order as to
costs.
[R. I. CHAGLA, J.] [R. D. DHANUKA, J.]
