Bombay High Court
Prakash Tukaram Pawaskar And Ors vs Union Of India Through The ... on 30 January, 2023
Bench: Sandeep V. Marne
28-WP-249-2020
Pdp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 249 OF 2020
Prakash Tukaram Pawaskar
& Ors. .. Petitioners
Vs.
Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 457 OF 2020
Anil Kumar Saxena & Ors. .. Petitioners
Vs.
Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents
Mr. Ramesh Ramamurthy a/w Mr. Saikumar Ramamurthy, Ms.
Kavita Anchan, Ms. Seema Sorte and Mr. Akhilesh Deshmukh
for petitioners in both the WPs.
Mr. Vijay H. Kantharia a/w Mr. Suresh Kumar for respondents
in both the WPs.
CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA, ACTING CJ. &
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATE: JANUARY 30, 2023
P.C.:
1. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioners and the
learned advocate for the respondents.
2. The petitioners in both these writ petitions seek direction that
they are covered by the Pension Scheme.
3. On the date the petitioners were appointed, they were
covered by CPF Scheme. All these petitioners are working prior to
the circulars dated 13th October, 1982 and 1st May, 1987. These
petitioners, after the Pension Scheme was introduced did not
submit their option. According to these petitioners as the option
was not submitted, deemed effect is to be given and they are to be
28-WP-249-2020
considered under the Pension Scheme.
4. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Division Bench of
this Court in Writ Petition No. 1331 of 2017 (Amita Ajit Desai &
Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.) dated 17th January, 2019.
5. The learned advocate for the respondents/UoI does not
dispute that the present petitioners are similarly situated as the
petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1331 of 2017. However, he submits
that petitioner no.13 in Writ Petition No. 249 of 2020 had exercised
his option after 1st May, 1987, i.e., on 4th August, 1987 and he
certainly would not be entitled for benefit of the Pension Scheme.
The learned advocate for the petitioners submits that a circular was
issued on or about 23rd November, 2004 in which names of the
persons who had not opted for the Pension Scheme and who would
be considered to be covered by the Pension Scheme was published
and the name of petitioner no.13 in Writ Petition No. 249 of 2020
appeared in the list of persons who had not given the option and as
such to be continued as deemed optees. There appears to be some
dispute in respect of the same.
6. In light of that, as far as petitioner no.13 in Writ Petition No.
249 of 2020 is concerned, the said petitioner may take the course
of action that may be available to him by representing the
respondents and/or by filing a separate proceeding.
7. It is submitted that the judgment and order of this Court in
Writ Petition No. 1331 of 2017 is also confirmed by the Apex Court
and the SLP filed against the said judgment was dismissed on 23rd
August, 2019.
8. In view of that, the present writ petitions are allowed in
terms of order dated 17th January, 2019 in Writ Petition No. 1331 of
2017, except petitioner no.13 in Writ Petition No.249 of 2020. The
petitioner no.13 in Writ Petition No. 249 of 2020 may make a
representation to the respondents/authority and/or file a separate
proceeding as permissible under law.
28-WP-249-2020
9. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs.
10. The exercise, as directed above, shall be done expeditiously,
preferably within two months.
(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
Digitally
signed by
PRAVIN
PRAVIN DASHARATH
DASHARATH PANDIT
PANDIT Date:
2023.01.30
19:43:43
+0530
