Bombay High Court
Arun Keshaorao Dhobe vs State Of Maha., Thr. Secretary Dept. Of ... on 5 December, 2023
Author: Anuja Prabhudessai
Bench: Anuja Prabhudessai
2023:BHC-NAG:16964-DB
1 WP3364.22 (J).odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3364 OF 2022
PETITIONER : Arun Keshaorao Dhobe,
Aged 66 years, Occu. Retired,
R/o Dhobe Layout, Kalamb,
Tah. Kalamb, Dist. Yavatmal.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS : 1] State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Department of Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2] Deputy Director of Education,
Amravati Division, Amravati.
3] The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal.
4] Shivshakti Vidyalaya, Kotha,
through its Principal,
(Veni), Tah. Kalamb, Dist. Yavatmal.
5] The Director of Education,
Pune, Maharashtra,
6] Shri Ambadas Pendhor,
Aged 62 years, Occu. Retired,
R/o Near ITI College, Vill. Rahatgaon,
Amravati, Maharashtra 444 602
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. P. P. Thakre, Advocate h/f Mr. Tejas J. Patil, Advocate for the
petitioner.
Mrs. K. R. Deshpande, A.G. P. for the respondent no.1 to 3 and 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 WP3364.22 (J).odt
CORAM : SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI and
MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : DECEMBER 05, 2023.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER - Smt. Anuja Prabhudessai, J.)
1. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of the learned advocates for the parties.
2. By this petition, filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs :
(i) quash and set aside the impugned order/communication
dated 01.12.2021 issued by the respondent no.1 (Annex.A)
(ii) to direct the respondent no.2 and respondent no.5 to grant
the benefit of addition of services as per rule 54(2) of the
Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 and to
release the regular pension and other pensionary benefits
in favour of the petitioner.
(iii) To direct the respondent no.2 to forthwith release the
amount of Rs.68,920/- towards gratuity with interest,
which still pending.
3. The petitioner is a qualified trained teacher i.e. Physical
Training Instructor (PTI). He initially worked at Lakhaji Maharaj High
School, Zadgaon from 01.07.1984 till end of academic year 1984-85 on
3 WP3364.22 (J).odt
aided post. The said appointment was approved by respondent no.3 -
Education Officer (Sec.), Z. P., Yavatmal vide its approval/order dated
25.01.1985. The services of the petitioner came to end by the end of
the said academic year 1984-85.
4. In the year 1992-98, the petitioner was appointed as a
trained graduate teacher/PTI in respondent no.4 Educational
institution. He worked in the said institution from 13.07.1992 till
30.04.1998. The petitioner was again appointed on 01.11.2003 and he
superannuated on 25.05.2013. Since, the petitioner had not completed
10 years of qualifying service for getting regular pension, the
respondent no.4 Institution, as per the provision of Rule 54(2) of the
Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, (for short 'the Rules
of 1982") submitted a proposal to the Education Department to
consider his previous service of five months and give benefit of regular
pension to the petitioner. On 25.02.2016, respondent no.3 Education
Officer submitted the said proposal to the respondent no.2, for further
action.
5. Respondent no.2, vide its order dated 25.11.2016 refused
4 WP3364.22 (J).odt
to extend the benefit of addition of service on the ground that it is
applicable only to Class-IV employees and that the petitioner is not
entitled to the same. The petitioner made several representations, but
did not succeed in getting the relief. Hence, this petition.
6. We have perused the record and considered the
submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties.
7. The petitioner has been declined benefit of regular
pension only on the ground that he has not completed 10 years
qualifying service. He was in fact short of 5 months and two days in
completing 10 years qualifying service. The tenor of the affidavit filed
by respondent no.3 Education Officer, indicates that the period of
service of the petitioner at Lakhaji Maharaj Vidyalaya was not
considered for calculating 10 years qualifying service, since the approval
order dated 25.01.1985 was not brought to his notice.
8. Referring to the statement made by the respondent no.3 in
paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the affidavit, learned AGP states that the
prayer of the petitioner to consider the said period of one year from
5 WP3364.22 (J).odt
academic year 1984-85, during which the petitioner was appointed at
Lakhaji Maharaj Vidyalaya, will be considered as qualifying service for
the purpose of granting him benefit of addition of service as per Rule
54(2) of the Rules of 1982. Learned AGP further submits that regular
pension and other consequential benefits will be released within four
weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Statement accepted.
9. In the light of the said statement, the petition is allowed in
terms of prayer clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) and disposed of. Rule is made
absolute. No order as to costs.
(VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)
Diwale
Signed by: DIWALE
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 11/12/2023 11:27:48
