Prabhavati Navnath Gaikwad vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9425 Bom

                                        1


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      12 WRIT PETITION NO.9398 OF 2022

                      PRABHAVATI NAVNATH GAIKWAD
                                    VERSUS
                THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                                      ...
                Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Avinash M. Reddy
                AGP for Respondent / State : Mr. K.N. Lokhande
                                      ...

                                    CORAM :     MANGESH S. PATIL &
                                                SANDEEP V. MARNE, JJ.

                                    DATE    :   19-09-2022

ORAL ORDER (PER SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) :

.                 By the present petition, the petitioner challenges

judgment and order dated 17.06.2008 passed by the Maharashtra

Administrative Tribunal Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad in Original

Application No.514 of 2007. The present petition has been filed after

long delay of 14 years and on this ground itself, the present petition

deserves to be dismissed. The only ground stated in the petition for

late filing of the same is that the petitioner was not aware about

passing of the impugned judgment and order on 17.06.2008. The

said explanation is unacceptable.

2. Even on merits, we do not find that any case is made out

for interference in the order passed by the Tribunal. The petitioner

was admittedly absorbed in the service on 22.10.1996 and retired on

attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2004. He did not put

in 10 years of qualifying service, which is required for pension.

Therefore, the Tribunal is justified in dismissing the original

application of the petitioner on merits.

3. Mr. Avinash M. Reddy, learned advocate appearing for

the petitioner has relied upon Government Resolution dated

25.02.2019. However, on perusal of the said Government Resolution,

we find that the only benefit that is extended by the said Government

Resolution is to make the old pension scheme applicable to unpaid

copywriters, who are absorbed after 01.11.2005. There is nothing on

record to indicate that the government extended the benefit of

counting the service as unpaid copywriters towards qualifying service.

Therefore, even on merits, the petitioner does not have any case.

4. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed without any

order as to costs.

( SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. )                       ( MANGESH S. PATIL, J. )

GGP