Gopalrao S/O Vyankoba Chiddarwar vs The State Of Mah. Thr. The Secty., ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9726 Bom

Judgment                                1               223.wp.1331.2010judg.odt




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                      NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                   WRIT PETITION NO.1331 OF 2010

      Gopalrao S/o. Vyankoba Chiddarwar,
      Aged 77 Yrs., Occu.: Retired Assistant Teacher,
      R/o. 46, "SWAGAT", Ganesh Colony, Amravati           .... PETITIONER

                                // VERSUS //

     1. The State of Maharashtra,
      through the Secretary,
      Education Department, Mantralaya,
      Mumbai -32

     2. The Deputy Director of Education,
      Amravati Division, Amravati

     3. The Education Officer (Secondary),
      Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal

    4. Head Master,
     The English High School and
     Junior College, Ner-Parsopant,
     Dist. Yavatmal, Pin- 445 102             .... RESPONDENTS
___________________________________________________________________
      None for the petitioner
      Mr N. S. Rao, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3
      Mr Anand Parchure, Advocate for respondent No.4
__________________________________________________________________
                      CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
                               G. A. SANAP, JJ.

DATED : 23.09.2022

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER : SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)

1] Heard.

2] We find that pension case of the petitioner could not be

processed and decided appropriately by respondent No.2 only because Judgment 2 223.wp.1331.2010judg.odt

some of the objections raised by him in respect of the pension proposal

were not answered or complied with by respondent No.4.

3] Unless and until these objections are properly answered

and complied with by respondent No. 4, respondent No. 2 would not

be in a position to decide the pension case of the petitioner

appropriately.

4] Prima facie, we find that the impediments faced by the

petitioner in receiving pension can be removed by recovery of salary

paid to the petitioner for the month of November 1977 and informing

respondent No.2 the provision of law appearing in note below Rule 66

of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1981 which reads as

follows:-

"The leave granted as leave preparatory to retirement shall not

include extra-ordinary leave."

5] Accordingly, we partly allow the petition and direct the

respondent No.4 to prepare a fresh pension proposal of the petitioner

complying with all the objections taken by respondent No.2 in the light

of the above referred observations and send it to respondent No. 2 for Judgment 3 223.wp.1331.2010judg.odt

its fresh consideration and approval by respondent No.2 within a

period of three months from the date of the order. We further direct

respondent No. 2 to decide the pension case of the petitioner within a

period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the proposal. The copy of

the pension proposal shall be forwarded to the petitioner.

6] Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.

                                              (G. A. SANAP, J.)         (SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)




                                Namrata




Signed By:NAMRATA YOGESH
DHARKAR
P. A.
High Court Nagpur
Signing Date:23.09.2022 17:11