Rekha Sharad Hublikar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 13339 Bom

bdp
                                      1
                                                                18-wpst-929.21.doc

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO. 929 OF 2021

Mrs. Rekha Sharad Hublikar                                 ... Petitioner
      Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors.                          ... Respondents

                                 ******
Mr. S. A. Rajeshirke for the Petitioner.
Mr. S. B. Kalel, AGP for the Respondent.
                                 ******
                                     CORAM: R. D. DHANUKA AND
                                            ABHAY AHUJA, JJ.

                                     DATE     : 17th SEPTEMBER, 2021.
P.C. :-

.     Mr. Rajeshirke, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to

delete the respondent nos. 4 and 5. Leave to amend is granted as prayed. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. Re-verification is dispensed with.

2. Rule. Learned AGP waives service for the respondent. By consent of parties, writ petition is heard finally.

3. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari inter-alia praying for quashing and setting aside the order dated 16 th November, 2020 and seeks writ of mandamus against the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to process the pension proposal without any requirement of sanction from respondent no.1 and to disburse the pension benefits to the petitioner

bdp

18-wpst-929.21.doc

within a period of four weeks with interest @ 10% p.a. on the outstanding pension amount from 1st February, 2017 till realization of pension benefit amount.

4. The petitioner was appointed on 28th December, 1995 to the post of Assistant Librarian on the permanent post of Part Time Librarian in 100% aided school. The petitioner was upgraded to the Full Time Librarian w.e.f. 1st March, 2011 in the respondent no.5-school. The said appointment was granted approval by the respondent no.3. The petitioner retired on 31st January, 2017 after completing the total service of 21 years and 4 days out of which 15 years 2 months and 4 days as Part Time Librarian and 5 years and 10 months as Full Time Librarian. The management submitted the proposal for payment of pension to the petitioner to the respondent no.3. Since, the pension proposal was not considered, the petitioner filed the Writ Petition 4186 of 2017 inter-alia praying for order and direction against the respondent no.3 to grant approval to the service certificate and for sanctioning the pension proposal of the petitioner. This Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim vide order dated 27 th July, 2017 on the light of the judgment passed by this Court in case of Smt. Rashmi Shriram Mone v/s. The State of Maharashtra, 2017 (3) All M.R. 703 and in case of Jyoti Prakash Chougule v/s. The State of Maharashtra in the Writ Petition No. 2354 of 2012.

5. Though, this Court issued the directions to the respondent no.3 to consider the said proposal in light of the principles of law laid down by this Court in the above referred two judgments, the respondent no.3 did

bdp

18-wpst-929.21.doc

not process and sanction the said pension proposal and made various remarks contrary to the law laid down by this Court in above referred judgments. In view of the said remarks made by the respondent no.3, the Senior Accounts Officer of Indian Audit and Accounts Department after considering the remarks made by the Education Officer returned the pension papers to the Education Officer for want of compliance with a request to resubmit the same after the compliance is made by the Education Officer to enable the Accounts Officer to finalize the pension case of the petitioner. It was further made clear that if any delay is anticipated in compliance of the remarks, provisional pension as applicable under rules may be sanctioned to the Government servant.

6. The respondent no.3 has neither complied with the requirements made in the said letter nor paid any provisional pension. The petitioner accordingly filed the Contempt Petition bearing No. 199 of 2020 in this Court against the respondent nos.1 to 3. The said Contempt Petition is also on board today.

7. This Court after considering the judgments in case of Smt. Rashmi Shriram Mone (supra) and in case of Jyoti Prakash Chougule (supra) has held that the case of the delay on unpaid amount, the interest would be attracted @ 6% p.a. In catena of decisions, this Court has held that the employees who had completed 50% of service rendered as Part Time employee on aided post shall be considered by computing the pensionable service along with the service rendered as Full Time employee. Though, the petitioner in this case has completed

bdp

18-wpst-929.21.doc

service of 21 years and 4 days out of which 15 years 2 months and 4 days as Part Time Librarian and 5 years and 10 months as Full Time Librarian, the Education Officer appears to have deliberately ignored the judgments of this Court in case of Smt. Rashmi Shriram Mone (supra) and in case of Jyoti Prakash Chougule (supra) and made irresponsible and untenable remarks in the communicated dated 20th July, 2020. In view of the said untenable remarks made by the Education Officer, the Senior Accounts Officer returned the pension papers back to the Education Officer for compliance.

8. The petitioner has completed the pensionable service and is entitled to receive the benefits under old pension scheme. The remarks made by the Education Officer are totally perverse and are deliberately made so as to deprive the legitimate claim for pension.

9. The remarks made by the respondent no.3 in the letter dated 20 th July, 2020 are quashed and set aside. It is made clear that the petitioner is entitled to pension under the old pension rules from the date of retirement. We accordingly direct the respondent no.3 to release the pension amount payable to the petitioner in accordance with law with interest @ 8% p.a. on the outstanding pension amount from 1 st February, 2017 within four weeks from today without fail.

10. A perusal of the record indicates that the Education Officer vide letter dated 5th June, 2020 had called upon the Management to comply with certain requirements. In our view, the query raised by the said letter dated 5th June, 2020 itself is contrary to the law laid down by this

bdp

18-wpst-929.21.doc

Court in case of Smt. Rashmi Shriram Mone (supra), in case of Jyoti Prakash Chougule (supra) and contrary to the directions issued by this Court.

11. Writ Petition is allowed in aforesaid terms.

12. Parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

      [ABHAY AHUJA, J.]                            [R. D. DHANUKA, J.]