Bombay High Court
Arun Vasantrao Sherekar vs Joint Director Of Higher Education, ... on 1 July, 2024
Author: Nitin W. Sambre
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre
2024:BHC-NAG:6844-DB
34wp7977.22.odt 1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.7977 OF 2022
(Arun Vasantrao Sherekar .vs. Joint Director of Higher Education and others)
__________________________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.
Mr. P.S. Patil, Advocate for Petitioner,
Mr. S.M. Ghodeswar, AGP for Respondent No.1,
Mr. M.A. Sable, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
..........
CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE AND ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
DATE : 1st JULY, 2024.
1. After the appointment of the petitioner on
April 01, 1976 as a Junior Clerk, he was promoted to the
post of Head Clerk on July 15, 1996.
2. It is not in dispute that the services of the
petitioner were duly approved.
3. The termination of the petitioner on May 04,
1999 was upheld by the Labour Court vide its judgment
and order dated 24th January, 2005. However, before the
Industrial Court, the Management entered into a
settlement and without there being any financial burden
on the Management, the relief of reinstatement was
allowed with continuity of service.
4. It appears that the petitioner stood
superannuated on 31st of October, 2011.
5. The Management, in the above background,
having regard to the qualifying service of more than 20
years, submitted a proposal for release of the pensionary
benefits, which is rejected/not proved, vide impugned
order, as such this petition.
6. The contentions of the learned counsel for the
petitioner are, once the petitioner has put in more than 20
years of qualifying service and the services were duly
approved, it is not open for the respondent-authority to
refuse the pensionary benefits only on the count that the
said respondent-authority was not party to the settlement
arrived at before the Industrial Court.
7. According to Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the
petitioner, the fact that the College was admissible to
grant sometime in 1995-96 can be inferred from the
record.
8. In this background, it is claimed that the
petitioner, after having qualified for the pensionable
service is entitled for the terminal benefits.
9. It is claimed that similarly placed employees
Mr. R.K. Raut and Mr. Sitaram Bakaram Devhare, who
were also on non-teaching posts, were extended benefit of
pension. In this background, it is claimed that the
petitioner is discriminated in the matter of release of the
pensionary benefits.
10. As against above, Mr. Sable, learned counsel
appearing for respondent nos.2 and 3, would support the
claim of the petitioner. Mr. Sable would urge that the
aforesaid factual matrix and the settlement arrived at
before the Industrial Court entitle the petitioner to claim
terminal benefits including that of pension.
11. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.
Ghodeswar would urge that the petitioner is not entitled
for the relief as the respondents are not party to the
settlement reached before the Industrial Court.
12. We have considered the rival submissions.
The other similarly placed employees namely, Mr. Raut
and Mr. Devhare referred above are granted pensionary
benefits, is not a fact in dispute.
13. As such, in case the settlement would not have
been arrived at, the order of termination if not would have
been given effect to, the petitioner otherwise was entitled
for such benefit.
14. We need to consider whether the respondent
not being party to the settlement arrived at before the
Industrial Court, can come out with the plea of petitioner
not being entitled for the retiral benefits.
15. None of the respondents has disputed that the
petitioner is having qualifying service for the purpose of
pension.
16. The settlement arrived at before this Court
recorded in Writ Petition No.2415/2008 dated 02.12.2016
(Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh College of Law through its
Principal, Amravati .vs. Arun Vasantrao Sherekar and
another), which was preferred by the respondent-
employer speaks as under :
"The learned counsel appearing for
the parties have filed joint pursis bearing St.
No.12792/2016. The contents of which are
reproduced below.
"The parties above named more
humbly submit as under :
1. That the Respondent no.2
Society has agreed to grant continuity of service
to the Respondent no.1 Employee and will pass
a resolution to that effect.
2. That, the Respondent no.1
Employee has agreed to give up all his rights as
far as his back-wages and other financial dues
which he may claim against the Petitioner
College and Respondent no.2 Society.
3. That, the Petitioner College and
the Respondent no.2 Society have agreed to
forward the documents and claims of the
Respondent no.1 Employee for his post-
retirement dues to the Government/University
as the case may be and shall extend all co-
operation for early release of his post-
retirement dues.
4. That, the Respondent no.1
Employee agrees that the Petitioner College and
Respondent no.2 Society shall not be liable for
any financial burden upon them. However, they
shall forward all such documents of the
Respondent no.1 Employee as may be required
under law for him to claim his post-retirement
dues from the Government/University.
5. That, in view of this compromise
between all the parties the Writ Petition can be
disposed of on these terms mentioned above."
The learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the pursis has been
signed by the petitioner and he is identified.
The learned counsel for the respondent nos.1
and 2 submits that the respondent nos.1 and 2
have also signed the pursis and they are
identified. The affidavit of respondent no.2 has
also been filed.
In view of above, the petition stands
disposed of as settled between the parties as per
the terms recorded above."
17. The aforesaid settlement no where puts an
embargo on the right of the petitioner or that of
respondent-management to disentitle the petitioner for
pension. The continuity of service is already agreed and
granted before the Industrial Court.
18. In the aforesaid eventuality, it cannot be said
that once the services of the petitioner were approved, he
was not entitled for the terminal benefits. That being so,
we allow the writ petition, quash and set aside the
impugned order dated 02.03.2022.
19. We direct that the pensionary benefits be
processed and released in favour of the petitioner within a
period of four months from today.
20. The writ petition stands disposed of
accordingly.
(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)
Gulande
Signed by: A.S. GULANDE
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 02/07/2024 18:30:58
