Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika ... vs Janki Gangadhar Sathe
2021 Latest Caselaw 14681 Bom

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          WRIT PETITION NO.10589 OF 2021

Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika,
Ahmednagar, through its
Commissioner                                                  PETITIONER
                                                           (Orig. Opponent)
       VERSUS

Janki Gangadhar Sathe,
Age : 87 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o Shiradhon, Tq. Nagar,
District Ahmednagar                                          RESPONDENT
                                                         (Orig. Complainant)
                                         ----
                     Mr. V.S. Bedre, Advocate for the petitioner
                     Mr. P.V. Barde, Advocate for the respondent
                                         ----

                                    CORAM :     MANGESH S. PATIL, J.

                                    DATE    :   07.10.2021


PER COURT :

Heard Mr. Bedre, learned Advocate for the petitioner as also

Mr. Barde, learned Advocate, who appears for sole respondent.

2. At the request of both the sides, the matter is heard finally at

the stage of admission.

3. The petitioner Corporation is impugning the judgment and

order dated 26.09.2018, passed by the learned Member of the Industrial

Court, Ahmednagar in Complaint (ULP) No.61/2017 filed by the

respondent alleging about unfair labour practice having been resorted to

2 WP10589-2021.odt by the petitioner of the kind referred under Items 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule

IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair

Labour Practices Act, 1971.

4. The respondent primarily alleged that she had worked with

the petitioner as a `Safai Kamgar' since 1978 on daily wages. She was

made permanent on 10.12.2002 and was superannuated on 01.06.2007.

She is entitled to claim pension pursuant to the Maharashtra Civil Services

Rules (Pension) Rules, which are, admittedly, applicable to the

employment, but the petitioner refused to pay the pension to her.

5. The facts are not in dispute. The respondent had entered into

service on daily wage basis in 1978 and served there as such till

10.12.2002 on which date she was absorbed in the permanent cadre. She

was superannuated on 01.06.2007. Though the period of permanent

service rendered by her was barely four years and few months, her claim

for counting of 50% of the service rendered by her on daily wage

basis/temporary basis, which was for about 24 years, is duly covered by

Rules 30, 57 and 110 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules,

1982.

6. In similar set of facts, in the matter of the petitioner

Corporation itself, namely Ahmednagar Municipal Corporation Vs. Malan

Kisan Asmar; 2018(1) ALL MR 759, this Court has directed the petitioner

to pay pension in accordance with the Rules. Admittedly, this judgment

3 WP10589-2021.odt was challenged by the petitioner before the Supreme Court, but the

decision of this Court has been confirmed. For the selfsame reasons as

have been assigned in Ahmednagar Municipal Corporation Vs. Malan

Kisan Asmar (supra), even this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. In view of such a state-of-affairs, I do not find any perversity

or arbitrariness much less any illegality in the impugned judgment and

order holding the respondent entitled to pension. There is no merit in the

petition. It is dismissed.

[MANGESH S. PATIL] JUDGE

npj/WP10589-2021.odt