Bombay High Court
Samidha Wd/O Sanjay Nakade vs State Of Maha., Thr. Secretary, Dept. Of ... on 11 December, 2023
Author: Anuja Prabhudessai
Bench: Anuja Prabhudessai
2023:BHC-NAG:17049-DB
2.wp.5381.2022 judge.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5381 OF 2022
Smt. Samidha Wd/o. Sanjay Nakade,
Aged about : 42 yrs. Occ. Household,
R/o. Ward No. 5, Adarsha Colony,
Nawargaon, Tal. Sindewahi, .... PETITIONER
Dist. Chandrapur-441223
// V E R S U S //
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Department of Higher and
Technical Education, Mantralaya,
Mumbai- 400032
2. The Director of Higher Education,
State of Maharashtra, Central
Building, Pune - 411001
3. The Joint Director of Higher Education,
Nagpur Division, Old Morris College
Compound, Civil Lines, Nagpur 440001
4. The Auditor General,
Pension and Retirement Benefits,
State of Maharashtra, Civil Lines,
West High Court Road, Nagpur 440001
5. Shri Dnyanesh Mahavidyalaya,
Nawargaon, through its Principal,
Chimur-Bypass road, Nawargaon,
Tal. Sindewahi, Dist. Chandrapur- ... RESPONDENTS
441223
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. B. G. Kulkarni, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr A. M. Joshi, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 4
Mr Sachin Deshpande, Advocate for respondent No.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.wp.5381.2022 judge.odt
2
CORAM : SMT ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI AND
MRS VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : DECEMBER 11, 2023.
ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER : SMT ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)
1 Heard.
2 RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties.
3 The petitioner is the widow of Sanjay Nakade, who was
appointed as a part time lecturer with respondent No.5-College on
12.07.1999. His appointment was upgraded as full time lecturer
with effect from 01.07.2005. He expired on 14.10.2020. The
respondent No. 5 -College submitted a proposal to respondent No.
3 for grant of retirement benefit and family pension in favour of the
petitioner.
4 The respondent No. 3 rejected the said proposal inter
alia on the ground that the husband of the petitioner was appointed
as full time lecturer on 01.07.2005, he was non NET/SET lecturer
and had not obtained prescribed qualification within the stipulated
2.wp.5381.2022 judge.odt
period. As per the Government Resolution dated 29.10.2021 the
non NET/SET lecturers appointed with effect from 23.10.1992 to
03.04.2000 are entitled for pensionery benefits as per the Old
Pension Scheme.
5 The petitioner claims that the respondent No.3 has not
taken into consideration the approved part time service from
12.07.1999 to 30.06.2005, which is to be treated as qualifying
service. The husband of the petitioner had to his credit total
qualifying service of 18 years, 03 months and 08 days. Hence, by
this petition, the petitioner has sought directions against the
respondents to count half of the part time service rendered by her
husband from 12.07.1999 to 30.06.2005 and to sanction the
gratuity and family pension on the basis of total qualifying service of
18 years, 03 months and 08 days as per the provisions of the
Maharashtra Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1982 and further to
release and pay the gratuity amount and family pension with effect
from 15.10.2020, as per the Rules.
2.wp.5381.2022 judge.odt
6 Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in Writ
Petition No. 8656/2018 (Surekha Wd/o. Vinayak Kathardekar .v/s.
Joint Director Higher Education, Government Polytechnic College
Campus, Sadar Nagpur and another) the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court has considered the said issue and similarly placed petitioners
were held to be entitled for grant of pensionery benefits. The
challenge by the State to the said Judgment in Special Leave to
Appeal (C) No. 12520/2021 was dismissed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. The facts raised in this petition are identical. The
issue having been squarely covered by the decision in the aforestated
case, the petitioner is entitled for the pensionery benefits.
7 In view of the above, the petition is allowed in terms of
prayer clause (i), (ii) and (iii).
8 Rule is made absolute in the above terms. The writ
petition stands disposed of, accordingly.
(VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)
Namrata
Signed by: Miss Namrata Suryawanshi
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 12/12/2023 16:00:25
