Bombay High Court
Ramesh Ashanna Polampalli And Others vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Its ... on 1 July, 2024
Author: Nitin W. Sambre
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre
10-WP-1819-24.odt 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.1819 OF 2024
Ramesh Ashanna Polampalli, Dist. Gadchiroli and ors.
-vs-
State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Rural Development Dept. Mantralaya, Mumbai and ors.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and the Registrar's orders.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri P. S. Kshirsagar, Advocate with Shri Uday Changle, Advocate for petitioners.
Shri D. P. Thakare, Additional Government Pleader for respondent No.1.
CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE AND ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
DATE : July 01, 2024
1. Heard.
2. The petitioners are questioning the order dated 11/09/2023
whereby the respondent-Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad,
Gadchiroli has ruled against the petitioners making them dis-entitled
for the pensionary benefits.
3. It appears that total nine employees were granted appointment
by the Selection Board as Under Graduate Teachers having possessing
M.C.V. C. qualification at the relevant time. Of these nine employees,
three employees have expired between 2019 to 2023.
4. The services of these employees came to be terminated vide
order dated 29/12/2001 on the ground that the petitioners were not
holding the requisite qualification.
5. Writ petition No.74/2002 preferred by the petitioners
questioning their termination came to be disposed of with directions
that subsequently acquired qualification of H.S.S.C. can be considered
for the purpose of their re-instatement.
6. It appears that accordingly the Zilla Parishad has forwarded a
proposal to the State Government who in turn granted approval to the
proposal for absorption of the petitioners and as a sequel of which the
petitioners' services were absorbed in the employment of respondent
No.2-Zilla Parishad.
7. The absorption order is sought to be relied on so as to claim that
the order dated 20/06/2006 to that effect has to be termed as
continuation of services of the petitioners and not fresh appointment.
Shri P. S. Kshirsagar, learned counsel for the petitioners in support of
the aforesaid submits that the petitioners were never appointed on
probation but were given regular appointment. The order of absorption
dated 20/06/2006 is subsequent to the Contributory Pension Scheme
(CPS) being brought into effect.
8. As a sequel of above, since absorption was subsequent to the
implementation of Contributory Pensions Scheme, respondent No.2-
Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad has passed the impugned order
thereby making petitioners dis-entitled for pensionary benefit as such
this petition.
9. The contention of Shri P. S. Kshirsagar, learned counsel is that
even if the order of absorption is of 2006, the Court is required to be
sensitive to the approval granted by the State Government to such order
of absorption and the fact that the petitioners were not re-appointed
thereby making them liable for probation. It is claimed that the
petitioners have acquired requisite qualification to be appointed as
untrained teachers. In such an eventuality the contention is such that
the academic status of the petitioners at the most may have impact over
the pay-scale and not the pensionary benefit. He would claim that for
the purpose of pension, the services of the petitioners at the entry point
that is in 2000 will have to be considered and not their qualification.
So as to substantiate the aforesaid contention, reliance is placed on
Division Bench judgment delivered at Aurangabad Bench in Writ
Petition No.858/2017 (Ashok Vasantrao Bochare vs. The State of
Maharashtra and ors.) dated 10/10/2019 which is followed in Writ
Petition No.1987/2022 (Raju Parmeshwar Agose and ors. vs. The State
of Maharashtra and ors.) decided on 30/01/2024 by this Court.
10. In addition to above, the counsel for the petitioners has invited
our attention to the Government Resolution dated 02/02/2024
whereby the State Government has amended its policy to be
implemented in regard to the Contributory Pension Scheme. According
to him the amended policy contemplates the option to be exercised by
the employees who were appointed pursuant to the advertisement
which was issued prior to the cut-off date which has been referred to in
the Contributory Pension Scheme. It is further urged that in any case
the initial entry in the employment of the petitioners was pursuant to
the selection process undergone by them and that being so they have
every right to exercise the option of earlier pension scheme and not the
Contributory Pension Scheme.
11. As against this, Shri D. P. Thakare, learned Additional
Government Pleader would urge that the Court is required to be
sensitive to the termination of services of the petitioners after they
having found to be not qualified. According to him even though the
word 'absorption' is used in the fresh appointment order issued in 2006,
same has to be read in conjunction with the conditions which are
incorporated in the appointment order which speaks of the fresh
appointment and the petitioners having been not entitled for the benefit
out of the earlier services rendered by them.
12. The learned Additional Government would urge that the
condition of improvement of qualification incorporated in the order of
2006 granting appointment to the petitioners postulates that the
petitioners were granted fresh appointment and not in continuation of
the earlier order of appointment of 2000.
13. Be that as it may, we are sensitive to the fact that the petitioners'
services were approved in 2006 subsequent to the order of approval by
the State Government. This Court in case of Ashok Vasantrao Bochare
(supra) has already taken a view that what is relevant in the matter of
extending the benefit of earlier pension scheme is (a) the date of initial
entry in service and (b) not the fact about the candidates like the
petitioners being not qualified.
14. In that view of the matter, issue notice to the respondents,
returnable on 26/08/2024.
15. Shri D. P. Thakare, learned Additional Government Pleader
waives service of notice for respondent No.1.
16. We direct the respondent No.1 to file response by the returnable
date.
(Abhay J. Mantri, J.) (Nitin W. Sambre, J.)
Asmita
Signed by: Smt. Asmita A. Bhandakkar
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 02/07/2024 16:37:18
