Bombay High Court
Jayram Baburao More vs State Of Maharashtra Thr Secretary And ... on 21 November, 2023
Author: G.S. Kulkarni
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
2023:BHC-AS:35084-DB
WP3753-23.doc
Vidya Amin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3753 OF 2023
Shri. Jayram Baburao More. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary,
Higher and Technical Education
2. Director of Higher Education
3. Joint Director of Higher Education, Pune Region
4. Savitribai Phule Pune University ... Respondents
__________
Mr. Vaibhav Kulkarni, for Petitioner.
Mrs. P. J. Gavhane, AGP for the State.
Dr. Rajendra Anbhule, for Respondent No.4.
______________________
CORAM : G. S. KULKARNI &
JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.
DATE : NOVEMBER 21, 2023.
ORAL ORDER: (Per G.S. Kulkarni, J.)
1. This proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution brings
before the Court the struggle of the petitioner, who was working as a
Hamal to avail pension, having retired from the service of Savitribai Phule
Pune University. The petitioner has rendered meritorious service as noted
by us in our previous orders, despite which on untenable/technical
grounds, for a period of two years from the date of his superannuation,
-------------------------
WP3753-23.doc
(i.e., from 31 May, 2021) he was not paid pension. It is in these
circumstances, contending that despite all necessary documents for
payment of pension were supplied by the University to the Office of
respondent nos. 1 to 3, the petitioner was being deprived of his legitimate
entitlement to receive pension, the petitioner felt constrained to approach
this Court by the present proceedings.
2. From the beginning of the present proceedings, we were wondering
as to whether any person who superannuates after a long unblemished
service should at all suffer such plight, after having rendered long service
(in the present case of about 30 years) and be deprived of the basic
entitlement of receiving pension, being the very source of livelihood. To
our mind, such state of affairs is totally unconscionable, when it is settled
about forty years back in the decision of the Supreme Court in D. S.
Nakara Vs. Union of India1 that the antiquated notion of pension being a
bounty, a gratuitous payment depending upon the sweet will or grace of
the employer not claimable as a right and, therefore, no right to pension
can be enforced through Court was held to be swept under the carpet, by
the decision of the Constitution Bench in Deoki Nandan Prasad Vs. State
of Bihar2. In such decision the Supreme Court had authoritatively ruled
that pension is a right and payment of it does not depend on the
1 AIR 1983 SC 130
2 AIR 1971 SC 1409
-------------------------
WP3753-23.doc
discretion of the Government and would be governed by the rules. It was
held that a Government servant falling within those rules was entitled to
claim pension. It was also held that the grant of pension did not depend
upon anyone's discretion. It was also held that only for the purpose of
quantifying the amount having regard to the service and other allied
matters, that it was necessary for the authority to pass an order to that
effect, but the right to receive pension would flow to the employee not
because of any such order but by virtue of the rules. The Supreme Court
further held that the pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace
depending on the sweet will of the employer. It was held that it was a
social welfare measure rendering socio-economic justice to those who in
the hey-day of their life ceaselessly toiled for the employer for an assurance
that in their old age they would not be left in lurch. It was held that it was
not an incentive but a reward for past service.
3. From the large number of cases coming to this Court it appears that
the above words interpreting the Constitutional provisions are more
forgotten than applied and implemented in its true spirit.
4. We had heard this Writ Petition on the first occasion on 9
November, 2023 when considering the plea of the petitioner and being
quite pained at the approach of respondent nos. 1 to 3, we had passed the
following order:
-------------------------
WP3753-23.doc
"1. We have heard Mr. Vaibhav Kulkarni, learned counsel for
the Petitioner, Ms. P. J. Gavhane, learned AGP for the
Respondent (State), Dr. Rajendra Anbhule for Respondent
No.4 and Mr. Keshav Tupe, Joint Director of Higher
Education, Pune joined online.
2. ` Mr. Tupe is very fair to tell us that immediately the
necessary steps can be taken to process the pension proposal of
the Petitioner, who has retired as a Coolie from his long service
with the University of Pune-Respondent No.4, stated to be
service of almost 30 years. We have with the assistance of the
learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the records.
We find that the appointment of the Petitioner itself although
was on a daily wages basis was of the year 1983. He was
continued in service thereafter and regularly appointed. Also
approval was granted even by the Education Department. He
has drawn salary on a regular pay scale as awarded to him. It
appears that he also received one promotion before he could
retire on 31st May 2021. There are also documents to show
that his performance he was exemplary, he was also granted
certain meddles for his dedicated service with the Pune
University.
3. It appears from the record that the proposal for the
Petitioner's pension on his retirement was forwarded by the
Pune University to the office of the Joint Director and also to
the Principal Secretary, Higher and Technical Education
Department, with all supporting documents. It is seen from
the letter of Pune University dated 14th December 2021, which
itself was a detailed letter/proposal along with all the
documents. However, responding to such letter, Dr.
Kirankumar Bondar, Joint Director at the relevant time
addressed a letter dated 21st February 2022 and thereafter,
letter dated 16th June 2022 which in our opinion appears to be
quite an insensitive and an arbitrary approach on the part of
the said officer. From the said communication, as addressed to
the Pune University, it appears that there was total non-
application of mind, in regard to the tenure of the service as
rendered by the Petitioner and his entitlement, being a
permanent employee of the University to be awarded the
pension, on his retirement. The Petitioner has suffered for 3
years as his pension proposal was entangled into enders
communication between Dr. Kirankumar Bondar and
repeated satisfaction of Dr. Bondar's queries by the University.
In the previous order passed by us, we have expressed our pain
-------------------------
WP3753-23.doc
and anguish on such approach of the said officer.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has also drawn our
attention to similar situation which had reached this Court in
the case of Dilip Krushna Tadakhe & Ors. Vs. State of
Maharashtra & Ors. in Writ Petition No.6168 of 2022
decided on 17th December 2013, in which the Court
considering the Government Resolutions and similar situation
as observed that the Government Resolutions were applicable
and if there were any issues in regard to the employee being
over age. The present case appears to be quite clear as already
the age issue was condoned as the Government itself had
recognised the entitlement of the Petitioner to continue in the
service of the University and for which the University was
awarded the appropriate grants. In the said decision as noted
by us above, the Court in the circumstances had made the
following observations in paragraph nos.2 and 3.
"2. On the earlier occasion, we called upon the
Joint Director, Higher Education, Pune Region,
Pune to take a decision as to how the petitioners are
disentitled to pensionary benefits. The Joint
Director, Higher Education has now placed on
record a communication and in which she fairly
states that the petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2
have been appointed by the Pune University,
although they did not qualify in terms of the
requirement of age. Yet, this is a peculiar case, when
petitioner No.1 belongs to a Scheduled Caste
(namely Hindu Matang) and petitioner No.2 is a
Hindu Teli. There was a specific Government
Resolution which empowered condoning the
requirement of age and in cases of over age
candidates, who have put in otherwise meritorious
and blemish-less services. That requirement can be
dispensed with and pensionary benefits can be
released. The Joint Director has taken a decision in
terms of the Government Resolution dated 18 th
March, 2011 and has forwarded the proposal dated
7th June, 2011 and 17th June, 2011. Thus both
candidates have been held to be entitled to draw
pension after the deficiency in their initial
appointment is condoned.
3. We do not see how such issues can be raised
at this belated stage. The petitioners have crossed
the retirement age and are requesting that
-------------------------
WP3753-23.doc
pensionary benefits on par with other employees he
made admissible to them and amounts be released.
When the proposal was forwarded by the
University, the names of both petitioners were
included. In these circumstances, we do not see the
State raising such frivolous and technical objections
in case of these petitioners. However, now that the
Joint Director has taken corrective steps, we do not
wish to issue any direction and particularly for
payment of costs individually by the Director. In the
peculiar facts and circumstances and by warning
that in the event such issues are raised in cases of
Class-IV employees and at belated stage, the Court
will pass orders imposing cost and personally to be
paid by higher officials, that we direct that within a
period of two weeks from today, the University shall
forward a fresh proposal in addition to one already
forwarded and with particular reference to the two
petitioners. On receipt of the said proposal, the
respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall take all necessary steps
and release the pensionary benefits within a period
of four weeks from the date of receipt of the said
proposal."
5. Similar view was taken in another case in Shri Ashok
Haribhau Sawant Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. in Writ
Petition No.8830 of 2015. We are infact considering a similar
situation in the present case. In the said decision, the Court
had granted the relief, namely the pension was ordered to be
released along with interest at the rate of 10%, the following
observations as made by the Court:-
"4. It has been pointed out that, this Court has
dealt with the identical issues in the following
matters-
a) Order dated 10th January 2012 in Writ
Petition No.6523 of 2011 in the matter of
Madhukar Shankarrao Pawar & Ors. Vs. State
of Maharashtra & Ors..
b) Order dated 17th December 2013 in Writ
Petition No.6168 of 2012 in the matter of Dilip
Krushna Tadakhe & Ors. Vs. State of
Maharashtra & Ors.
-------------------------
WP3753-23.doc
5. We, therefore, find that the issue of raising an
objection as regards the qualifying age at the time of
recruitment, being raised at the fag end of the service
of the Petitioner, has been dealt with by this Court
and the said objection has been rejected. The
observations of this Court in paragraph Nos. 2 and 3
in the order dated 17th December 2013 in the matter
of Dilip Krushna Tadakhe (Supra), puts this issue to
rest.
6. Considering the above, this Petition is allowed
in terms of prayer clause (a). Insofar as the interest on
the pension is concerned, we are granting 10%
interest per annum on the pension amount, which
should have been paid to the Petitioner within three
months from the date of his superannuation i.e. on
31 May 2011. The said interest shall, therefore, be
calculated w.e.f. 1st September 2011."
6. On a batch of petitions, Writ Petition No.5068 of 2018,
Sulbha Shankar Kurne Vs. The State of Maharashtra through
its Secretary & Ors., another coordinate bench of this Court
had passed similar orders, the relevant observations in that
regard are required to be noted, which reads thus:-
"3 On behalf of the Respondent, the grant of
pension to the Petitioners is opposed on the ground
that the Petitioners were over age at the time of their
initial appointment and therefore, their appointment
falls foul of the Government Resolution dated
28.01.1986 which fixed the upper age limit insofar as
the nonteaching posts are concerned. Insofar as the
issue as to whether the fact of the Petitioners being
over age at the time of their initial appointment
would disentitle them to pension after putting in long
years of service with the University is concerned, the
same is no more resintegra and is covered by various
judgments/orders passed by the Division Benches of
this Court. The same can be gainfully summarized
herein below :
i) Order dated 10th January 2012 in Writ
Petition No.6523 of 2011 in the matter of
Madhukar Shankarrao Pawar & Ors. Vs. State
of Maharashtra & Ors.
-------------------------
WP3753-23.doc
ii) Order dated 17th December 2013 in Writ
Petition No.6168 of 2012 in the matter of
Dilip Krushna Tadakhe & Ors. Vs. State of
Maharashtra & Ors.
iii) Order dated 2 nd May 2017 in Writ
Petition No.8830 of 2015 in the matter of
Ashok Haribhau Sawant Vs. State of
Maharashtra & Ors.
4 Hence, the objection as regards the Petitioners
being over age at the time of recruitment, has been
rejected by the Division Benches of this Court,
therefore, the said issue has been put to rest. The
orders passed by the Division Benches in the above
Writ Petitions are in respect of the employees who are
similarly situated as Petitioners as can be seen from
the proposal sent by the University to the Director of
Higher Education wherein the names of all the
Petitioners are appearing along with the Petitioner in
Writ Petition No.8830 of 2015 i.e. Ashok Haribhau
Sawant.
5 In that view of the matter, the above Writ
Petitions are required to be allowed and are
accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).
Since the Petitioners have been wrongly denied the
benefit of pension they would be entitled to the
arrears of pension with interest @ 6% p.a. from the
date of their retirement till payment. We direct that
the payment to be made on or before 31.12.2018
failing which the rate of interest would increase to @
10% p.a."
7. Again in the case of Kunda Prakash Ranade Vs. State of
Maharashtra Through Its Secretary Higher and Technical Edu.
Dept. & Ors. in Writ Petition 2482 of 2020 alongwith a batch
of petitions, a Division Bench of this Court deprecated such
conduct of the department in denying the pension to the
Petitioners therein, who were denied pension on the ground
that the Petitioner were over age. The Court granted relief to
the Petitioner by directing that the pension be paid and also
the arrears of pension be granted by 12% interest per annum
within a time bound schedule. The relief observations read
thus:
-------------------------
WP3753-23.doc
"1. ....
2. This issue has been considered by various
Division benches of our Court in a number of cases,
including the cases of Dilip Krushna Tadakhe & Ors.
V/s State of Maharashtra & Ors. (decided on
17.12.2013), Shri Ashok Haribhau Sawant Vs. State
of Maharashtra & Ors. (decided on 02.05.2017),
Shamsundar @ Sham Laxman Madwal Vs. State of
Maharashtra & Ors. (decided on 12.03.2018) and
Sulbha Shankar Kurne Vs. The State of Maharashtra
through its Secretary & Ors. (decided on
04.09.2018). It has been held in all these cases that
objections regarding over age at the time of
appointment could not be sustained for denying
pension to the respective employees.
3. The learned AGP on behalf of the
Respondent-State is unable to point out any
distinguishing feature in the facts of the present case
from the facts of these other cases.
4. Accordingly, Rule is made absolute and the
petitions are allowed in terms of prayer clause 'c' in
each of the petitions.
5. Since the Petitioners' pensions have been
delayed due to no fault of theirs and despite law
stated by this Court in a number of cases, the
Respondents are directed to pay the Petitioners' dues
with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. on delayed
payment of pension from the date of the respective
due dates and until payment. We direct the
Respondent-State to pass appropriate orders and
release the pensionary dues as expeditiously as
possible and in any event, within a period of six
weeks from today. In case the Petitioners' dues are not
released within six weeks from today, the dues shall
carry interest at the rate of 12 % p.a. from expiry of
six weeks and until payment."
8. The case before us is not different from what has been
noted by us hereinabove, infact in our opinion, this case is a
gross case and completely infected by a totally callus approach
of Dr. Kirankumar Bondar and who in our opinion has
-------------------------
WP3753-23.doc
unwarrantedly created a situation of raising queries which
were totally irrelevant as also disregarded the Government
Resolutions as also the decisions of this Court on similar
issues. Such issues were covered by existing Government
Policies. We accordingly have no manner of doubt that the
Petitioner needs to be granted reliefs.
9. However, the present Joint Director-Mr. Keshav Tupe is
before us as noted above who has taken a fair stand. He
submits that he has recently taken over the charge and
realising the facts of the case, he would consider all the
relevant material and make an appropriate proposal to the
State Government which is required to be sanctioned by the
Secretary Education.
10. Though the Court closes for Diwali vacation tomorrow
and we are under tremendous pressure for large number of
urgent orders to be made available to the parties, we have still
considered to pass such a detailed order considering the fact
that here is the petitioner before us who is retired after 30
years of service as Hamal / Coolie. He is a senior citizen, he is
suffering every day for the pension not being paid to him. In
these circumstances, certainly our conscience would not
permit to delay passing any order on a situation which is
before us. As all others, the petitioner also needs to be happy,
having devoted his entire life in the service in the University,
by receiving his legitimate entitlement of pension and more
particularly considering the ensuing festival season.
11. We accordingly adjourn the present proceedings for
tomorrow i.e. 10th November 2023 to be taken at 4.30 p.m.
12. In the meantime, the Joint Director is directed to
immediately present the proposal which is already in his office
for approval of the Secretary of the Education Department.
The Secretary of the Education Department is directed to
grant approval to such proposal.
13. Considering the observations as made by us above, we
hope that the concerned officer will show utmost sensitivity to
these matters, when it concerns pension and more particularly,
the settled principles of law in that regard as laid down in
catena judgments of the Supreme Court.
14. In this context, we may refer the decision of the Supreme
-------------------------
WP3753-23.doc
Court in the case of Dr. Uma Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. &
Anr.3, wherein, the Supreme Court has expected of utmost
sensitivity of such issues and the facts which need to be taken
by the concerned officers. In Paragraph 2 of the Supreme
Court's case reads as under:-
"Now-a-days, several writ petitions are being filed in
this Court and various High Courts seeking relief for
disbursement of retiral benefits, because of inordinate
delays in payment of these benefits. As Krishna Iyer,
J. stated in State of Mysore Vs. C. R. Sheshadri &
Ors. [SCC P.312, Para 8],
"a retired government official is sensitive to delay in
drawing monetary benefits. And to avoid
posthumous satisfaction of the pecuniary expectation
of the superannuated public servant - not unusual in
government",
it is becoming necessary to issue directions, in several
cases, for early payment of these dues. In yet another
case in State of Kerala & Ors. Vs. M. Padmanabhan
Nair [1985 (1) SCC 429], this Court had occasion to
point out (at SCC p.430, para 2) that usually "the
delay occurs by reason of non-production of the L.P.C
(last pay certificate) and the N.L.C.(no liability
certificate) from the concerned departments" but both
the documents pertain to matters, records whereof
would be with the government departments. It was
observed that inasmuch as the date of retirement of
every government servant was very much known in
advance, it was difficult to appreciate why the process
of collecting the requisite information and issuance of
the abovesaid two documents should not be
completed well before the date of retirement so that
the payment of gratuity amount could be made on
the date of retirement or on the following day and the
pension, at the expiry of the following month. This
Court stated that the necessity for prompt payment of
the retirement dues to a government servant
immediately after his retirement could not be over-
emphasised and it would not be unreasonable to
direct that there would be a liability to pay penal
interest on these retirement benefits. In several cases,
3 (1999) 3 SCC 438
-------------------------
WP3753-23.doc
decided by this Court, interest at the rate of 12% per
annum has been directed to be paid by the State."
15. We may reiterate that we were pained to see a person who
has retired as a Coolie suffering in this manner, we thus have a
hope that the pension to the Petitioner would be sanctioned
and released and he would be paid the arrears of pension.
16. Depending on the orders which would be passed by the
appropriate officers, further appropriate orders on the present
petition would be required to be passed tomorrow."
5. Thereafter, the petition was taken up for hearing on 10 November,
2023, which was the last working day before the Court closed for the
Diwali vacation. The Court recorded the stand taken by the State
Government that the provisional pension is being paid to the petitioner,
however, being not satisfied with the fact that mere payment of provisional
pension would do any justice to the petitioner, we passed an order that the
State Government needs to make payment of the pension to the
petitioner. Considering the special attention this case would deserve, we
decided to assemble for today's vacation hearing only for this matter. It
would be necessary to note our order dated 10 November, 2023, which
reads thus:
"1. In this case in which the petitioner retired as a Hamal /
Coolie, we had passed a detailed order dated 9 November
2023 directing that the petitioner be paid pension.
2. We are not at all satisfied on compliance of our order
dated 9 November 2023. We were hopeful that Mr. Tupe,
Joint Director, who appeared before us and who assured that
our orders would be complied and the legitimate pension
-------------------------
WP3753-23.doc
payable to the petitioner, would be finalized / sanctioned and
released as also similar directions to the Secretary of the
Education Department, are all rendered insignificant, as what
has been placed before us is an order of provisional pension
dated 9 November 2023 granting Rs. 5865/- as provisional
pension to the petitioner and that too from June,2021 to
November 2021. As to on what basis and understanding of
which paragraph of our order, such provisional pension order
was issued, is not understood. In fact issuing of such
provisional pension order is contrary to our directions in
paragraph 15 of our order dated 9 November 2023 amounting
to breach of our said order, which we may have to deal as the
law would mandate.
3. Today being the last day before the Court closes for the
Diwali Vacation, we had kept the present matter after the
proceedings of Special Bench comprising of Hon'ble the Chief
Justice and one of us (G.S. Kulkarni, J.) are over. Accordingly,
this Bench has assembled specially for this case at 5.50 p.m.
However, in the peculiar facts of the case, considering what has
been expressed by us in the earlier order that a person like
petitioner who retired as coolie after rendering 30 years of
services is treated in a most unfair manner and arbitrarily. He is
not being paid pension since last more than 2 years. Hence, we
propose to take up this matter during the Court vacation i.e. on
21 November 2023, to pass further appropriate orders on what
was observed by us in the earlier order and in the above
paragraphs.
4. However as a matter of immediate concern, considering
the submissions as made by the learned AGP who also agrees
that the said order of provisional pension is not in compliance
of our orders dated 9 November 2023, on instructions, the
learned AGP has fair stand to submit that the compliance can
be brought about, if some more time is granted. We
accordingly, adjourn the proceedings to 21 November 2023.
5. Accordingly, we direct that by 21 November 2023, the
respondents shall comply with the directions as contained in
paragraph 15 of our order dated 9 November 2023. We direct
that necessary steps be taken including any step if required to
be taken by the Accountant General to release the payment in
favour of the petitioner.
6. We may reiterate that this is a gross case, and in the event,
-------------------------
WP3753-23.doc
our orders are not implemented, we would direct the Secretary,
High and Technical Education Department, Government of
Maharashtra and the Joint Director of Education Mr. Keshav
Tupe, who are under an obligation to comply with our order,
to remain present before this Court as may be directed, so that
we can pass further appropriate orders including in respect of
breach of the present orders.
7. In the meantime, the provisional pension order dated 9
November 2023 for the period of six months which is a small
amount be calculated and as a special case be paid to the
petitioner by 5 p.m. tomorrow by a Government Pay Order or
e-transfer to the petitioner's bank account. Such amount shall
be adjusted / taken into consideration, in the regular pension as
payable to the petitioner. Ordered accordingly.
8. We may also observe that any breach of the order of
payment of provisional pension by tomorrow 5 p.m. as noted
by us above, shall be treated as intentional disobedience of this
order. This is in view of the fact that the said amount payable
to the petitioner is clearly set out in the provisional pension
order.
9. Parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.
10. Stand over to 21 November 2023."
6. On the above backdrop, the parties are before us.
7. Today Ms. Gavhane, learned AGP has tendered a communication
dated 20 November, 2023 as addressed to her by Shri Ajit Bawiskar,
Deputy Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Department,
Government of Maharashtra in which it has been recorded that the
petitioner's pension has been finally fixed, as also the arrears of pension are
already released and received by the petitioner. The said communication
is taken on record and marked "X" for identification. The relevant
-------------------------
WP3753-23.doc
paragraphs of such letter as borne out by the record of the Government are
required to be noted, which reads thus:
(Official transaction)
"........
03. .....
A) The amount of Rs. 101700/- of provisional pension for
the period of six months from June, 2021 to November,
2021, sanctioned to Shri Jayram Baburao More, has been
deposited in his account No. 20063031550 on 11th
November, 2023.
B) Under the Government Letter NO.
C.M.2311/M.No.35/Vi.Shi.-1 dated 10 November, 2023,
th
approval has been granted to condone the higher age of
Shri Jayram Baburao More at the time of appointment.
C) Under the Order NO. PPO No. M112306609746 dated
13.11.2023, of the Office of the Accountant General,
Mumbai, approval has been granted to the Pension matter
of Shri More.
D) Below-mentioned amounts have been deposited in the
pension account of Shri Jayram Baburao More on the date
17th November, 2023.
1) Amount of Rs.4,22,640/- towards the Pension for the
period from the month of December, 2021 to October,
2023.
2) Commutation amount Rs.2,30,678/-,
3) Amount of Gratuity Rs. 67,480/- (Rs. 1,70,085 -
Rs.1,02,605 of recovery of excess payment)".
8. Ms. Gavhane, on instructions of Mr. Keshav Tupe, Joint Director of
Higher Education, Pune who is present in the Court, has brought to our
notice the 'pension payment order' dated 13 November 2023 issued in
favour of the petitioner by the Chief Accountant General (1),
Maharashtra, Mumbai, which indicates that pension as payable to the
-------------------------
WP3753-23.doc
petitioner has been finally fixed. A copy of which is stated to be issued to
the petitioner. A copy of the same is also being furnished to the advocate
for the petitioner.
9. Mr. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed on
record a letter dated 20 November, 2023 of the petitioner as addressed to
the Assistant Director of Education, Pune Division informing him of the
arrears of pension being credited to his account. A copy of the same is
taken on record and marked "X-1" for identification.
10. Mr. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioner states that in view
of the fair stand as taken by the department, the petitioner would not
intend to prosecute this petition any further and the same can be disposed
of recording a receipt of the arrears of pension by the petitioner.
11. In the light of above developments, we are of the opinion that
further adjudication of the petition is not called for. However, henceforth
the petitioner be paid his monthly pension with regularity and without
default.
12. Before parting, we appreciate the fair stand as taken by the State
Government and particularly of Mr. Keshav Tupe, Joint Director of
Higher Education and Mr. Ajit Bawiskar, Deputy Secretary, Higher and
-------------------------
WP3753-23.doc
Technical Education in putting an end to the petitioner's ordeal.
13. While parting we may also record that this case is certainly an eye-
opener that if the officers promptly consider the grievances of the
pensioners like the petitioner, there would be no need for the pensioners
to approach the Courts. We may observe that many of such issues, in fact,
do not require adjudication and can stand resolved at the level of the
department, provided there is a willingness to do so, of the officers of the
State Government.
14. With due appreciation to the efforts taken by the said officers as also
Ms. Gavhane, learned AGP to conclude the present litigation, we put an
end to the present proceedings.
15. The petition accordingly stands disposed of in the above terms.
16. No costs.
[JITENDRA JAIN, J.] [G. S. KULKARNI, J.]
-------------------------
Signed by: Vidya S. Amin
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 21/11/2023 21:07:19
