Chanda Wd/O Dharmaraj Barapatre vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 596 Bom

                            1/4                      947.wp.3155.21.odt


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR


                     WRIT PETITION NO. 3155/2021


     Chanda Wd/o. Dharmaraj Barapatre,
     Aged about 46 years, Occupation : Household,
     R/o. Jama Masjid Parisar, Bhaitalav Ward, Pauni,
     Tah. Pauni, Dist. Bhandara.                      PETITIONER

            VERSUS
1.   The State of Maharashtra, through its
     Secretary, Higher and Technical Education
     Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

2    Joint Director, Higher Education,
     Nagpur Division, Nagpur.

3    Shri Shivaji Education Society,
     Amravati's Science College, Pauni,
     Tah. Pauni, Dist. Bhandara through its Principal.

4.   The State of Maharashtra,
     through Secretary, General Administration
     Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.
     (Amended as per Hon'ble Court's Order
     dt. 20.07.2022)                                     RESPONDENTS

Mr. N. B. Kalwaghe, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. A. A. Madiwale, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 and 2/
State.

      CORAM : A.S.CHANDURKAR AND MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.

DATED : JANUARY 17, 2023

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned

Counsel for the parties.

2/4 947.wp.3155.21.odt

2. The husband of the petitioner was serving on the post of

lecturer at the College conducted by respondent No.3 - Society having

been appointed on 10.01.1995. During the course of his employment, the

qualification of M.Phil. was obtained. The petitioner's husband expired on

14.09.2019 and his claim for family pension along with retiral benefits

was raised by the petitioner. By the impugned communication dated

29.07.2020 the proposal for grant of family pension was returned on the

ground that the late husband of the petitioner had not passed the

NET/SET examination. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has challenged the

said communication.

3. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2, it

has been stated in paragraph No.7 as under :

"I crave leave of this Hon'ble Court to bring to its notice that the State Government by Resolution dated 23.10.2021 granted the pensionary benefit to the Lecturers who were appointed during the period from 23.10.1992 to 03.04.2000 though they had not acquired NET/SET qualification."

In view of this statement, it is clear that by virtue of the

Government Resolution dated 23.10.2021, the family pension cannot be

denied on the ground that the petitioner's husband did not have the NET/

SET qualification.

3/4 947.wp.3155.21.odt

4. Another ground for denying the family pension is that the

caste validity certificate was not produced by the petitioner's husband

during his life time. Since the issue was pending with the study group

constituted by the State Government, the said benefits were not being

released.

5. We find that on 14.12.2022, the General Administration

Department of the State Government has issued a policy decision stating

therein the manner in which service benefits are to be given in the absence

of validity certificate. From the said Government Resolution it becomes

clear that it would be necessary for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to

consider the entitlement of the petitioner for receipt of family pension in

accordance with law.

6. In view of the aforesaid, the following directions are issued.

i] The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall examine the

entitlement of the husband of the petitioner, late

Dharamraj R. Barapatre for pensionary benefits.

Consequently the claim of the petitioner for release of

the family pension shall be considered in the light of

the Government Resolution dated 14.12.2022.

                                              4/4                       947.wp.3155.21.odt


                             ii]    We note that the petitioner's husband was appointed on

10.01.1995 and it is submitted that since the College in

question was receiving grand-in-aid. The respondent

Nos.1 and 2 shall consider all relevant aspects and take

a decision in that regard within a period of six weeks of

receiving copy of this judgment.

iii] If it is found that the petitioner is entitled for such

pensionary and ancillary benefits, the same shall be

released within a further period of two months from

such decision.

iv] The decision taken be communicated to the petitioner.

7. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No costs.

(MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.)

RGurnule .

Digitally signed byRANJANA MANOJ MANDADE Signing Date:19.01.2023 17:25