Bombay High Court
Devaji Gopala Ingle vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 22 January, 2024
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2024:BHC-AUG:2108-DB
{1}
wp 14955.17 R.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 14955 OF 2017
Devaji s/o. Gopala Ingle,
Age 65 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o. Vikas Nagar, Bhokardan,
Dist. Jalna. .. Petitioner
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. Shipora Shikshan Prasarak Mandal
Shipora Bazar, Tq. Bhokardan,
Dist. Jalna, through its Secretary.
3. The Education Officer (Secondary)
Zilla Parishad, Jalna.
4. Gulabrao s/o. Shankarrao Gawai,
Age Major, Occ. Retired Teacher,
R/o. Shipora Bazar, Tq. Bhokardan,
Dist. .. Respondents.
Mr. M.R.Wagh, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Vivek Dhage, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 4
Mr. S.K. Shirse, AGP for respondent No.1.
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI
& S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ.
DATE : 22nd JANUARY, 2024.
Judgment (per S. G. Chapalgaonkar, J.) :-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of learned counsel for the parties.
{2}
wp 14955.17 R.odt
The petitioner approached this court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India thereby seeking directions to grant him the
pensionary benfits and for that purpose, issue directions against the
President of Trust to forward his pension papers to Education Officer, for
onward submission to Accountant General, Nagpur.
2. Mr. M.R. Wagh, learned advocate for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner worked as Assistant Teacher under establishment of
Zilla Parishad during the period from 1976 to 1980. Thereafter, he was
appointed as Head Master in Ram-Rahim Vidyalaya, Shipora Bazar w.e.f.
15.12.1980. He was continued in service till 2002. Although, he
completed pensionable service period, the respondents have failed to
take necessary steps to release pension and pensionary benefits on the
strength of his service of more than 22 years.
3. Mr. Dhage, learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 2 and 4
vehemently submits that the petitioner is not coming with clean hands
and his contentions are based on misconception of facts and law. He
would submit that the petitioner was dismissed from service vide order
dated 18.8.1997 after full fledged inquiry. Thereafter, respondent No.4
Shri G.S. Gavai was appointed as In-charge Head Master vide order dated
22.8.2000. The appointment/approval of the respondent No.4 was
challenged by the petitioner by filing W.P. No. 3795 of 2000. Thereafter,
the petitioner filed appeal No. 164 of 2000 before the School Tribunal at
Aurangabad challenging the order of his termination. However, said
appeal was dismissed being barred by limitation. This Court upheld the
order of the Tribunal. Thereafter, petitioner filed fresh appeal No. 127 of
2001 before the School Tribunal which was allowed by the School
Tribunal vide order dated 18.4.2002. Consequently, termination order
{3}
wp 14955.17 R.odt
was set aside with further directions to reinstate petitioner in service.
The aggrived respondent Nos. 2 to 4 had preferred W,.P. No. 1836 of
2002 before this Court. After hearing the parties, the writ petition came
to be allowed and the order passed by the Tribunal was set aside.
The petitioner had assailed said order in LPA No. 5 of 2004
before the Division Bench of this Court which came to be dismissed on
4.12.2006. The aggrieved petitioner had approached the Honourable
Supreme Court by way of Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 7295 of
2007, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 12.7.2011.
Consequently, the order of petitioner's dismissal from service attained
finality. As such, the petitioner lost his entitlment for pension under
provisions of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules.
4. We have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of
the learned advocates appearing for respective parties. We have perused
the record. The thrust of the petitioner's contention appears that the
petitioner has completed 22 years of service. Hence, acquired right to
receive pension. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner
relying upon the entry in the service book submits that petitioner was
reinstated on the post of Head Master in terms of the order dated
20.4.2002. passed by the School Tribunal at Aurangabad. Therefore, he
was continued in service even after the alleged dismissal and acquired
the right to receive pension. The learned counsel for the petitioner
further relies upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in the
case of Anna Deoram Londhe vs. State of Maharashtra (1998) 3 Mh.L.J.
435 to contend that the petitioner would be entitled for compassionate
pension in terms of Rule 100(1) of the Maharashtra Civil Services
(Pension) Rules 1982. We are afraid to accept the contention of the
{4}
wp 14955.17 R.odt
petitioner. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was dismissed from
service after full fledged inquiry and his dismissal from service remained
undisturbed upto the Supreme Court of India.
5. Although the petitioner was reinstated in service under the
order passed by the School Tribunal, this Court has set aside the order of
the Tribunal, consequently, dismissal of the petitioner was maintained.
Thereafter, for all practical purposes the petitioner will have to be treated
as an employee dismissed from service. At this stage, it is apposite to
refer to Rule 45 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1982,
which reads thus :-
"45. Forfrieute of service on dismissal or removal :
Dismissal or removal of Government servant from
service or post entails forfeiture of his past service."
It can be gathered from aforesaid rule that in case of dismissal of a
Government employee his past service cannot be counted for extending
the pensionary benefits. Although, the petitioner had completed 22 years
of service which is normally sufficient to make him eligible for
pensionary benefits, in view of dismissal from service and consequential
forefeiture of past service, the petitioner has lost his right to receive
pension.
6. So far as alternate submission advanced on behalf of the
petitioner that he is entitled for benefit of compassionate pension, which
is available to the removed Government servant, we are unable to accede
to such contention for the reason that Rule 101(2) of the Maharashtra
Civil Services (Pension) Rules also stipulates that dismissed Government
employee is not eligible for compassionate pension. In that view of the
{5}
wp 14955.17 R.odt
matter, the view taken by this Court in the case of Anna Deoram Londhe
(supra) would not assist the petitioner for claiming any relief. In the said
case, the employee was removed from service on account of conviction
for the offence punishable under section 325 of IPC. He was granted
liberty to make representation to the Government and apply for
compassionate pension under Rule 100 r/w. 101 of the Maharashtra Civil
Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. The said representation was rejected by
the Government. The Government order of rejection was subject matter
of challenge in writ petition. Consequently, this Court directed the
Government to grant compassionate pension. However, the case in hand
pertains to dismissal of Government employee, hence, falls beyond the
ambit and scope of Rule 100 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension)
Rules, 1982.
7. In the result, we do not find any merit in the petition. Writ
petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
[S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J]
grt/-
Signed by: G R TOKE
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 01/02/2024 11:20:15
