Bombay High Court
Dilip Laxman Bhimte vs State Of Maharashtra, Rural ... on 21 April, 2025
Author: Avinash G. Gharote
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
2025:BHC-NAG:4059-DB
16-wp3813.24-J.odt
1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3813 OF 2024
Dilip Laxman Bhimte,
Age - 53 years, Occ.: Retired,
R/o C/o Smt.Ravikanta Bai Surendra Meshram,
Mukkam Post Bisoni,
Tehsil Lanji, Zilla Balaghat,
M.P. 481222. .......PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
1. State of Maharashtra,
Rural Development Department, Mumbai,
Through Secretary, Bandhkam Bhavan, 25,
Mezban Path, Fort, Ballard Estate, Fort,
Mumbai, Maharashtra-400001.
2. Zilla Parishad Gondia,
through Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Gondia-441601.
3. Education Officer Primary,
Zilla Parishad Gondia-441601.
4. Block Education Officer,
Panchayat Samiti Sadak Arjuni,
Tehsil Sadak Arjuni,
District Gondia-441807. .....RESPONDENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S.I.Khan, Adv. for the petitioner.
Mr. A.M.Kadukar, AGP for the respondents-State.
Mr. A.M.Dixit, Adv.for the respondent Nos.2 to 4.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE &
ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
DATE : 21ST APRIL, 2025
KHUNTE
16-wp3813.24-J.odt
2/6
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)
Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally
with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
3. The petitioner, who was appointed as an assistant teacher with the
respondent No.3-zilla parishad on 03/09/1997, tendered his resignation
from the post of assistant teacher by the communication dated
01/11/2019 (Pg.25) on the ground, that though a departmental enquiry
had been initiated against him, the same was not progressing in any
manner whatsoever, which was leading to severe mental pressure, in view
of which, he was unable to perform his duties as an assistant teacher. This
resignation came to be accepted by the respondent No.3 on 20/03/2019
(Pg.30). The petitioner, thereafter on 18/03/2022 (Pg.34) made an
application for withdrawal of his resignation on the ground that it was
incorrectly accepted, and since no action has been taken on this, the
present petition has been filed, seeking a declaration, that the resignation
dated 01/01/2019 be treated as an application for VRS. A relief is also
sought for pensionary benefits, gratuity and leave encashment.
4. Mr.Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits, that the
resignation was given by the petitioner, in the circumstances, as indicated
therein, as there was no substantial progress in the department enquiry
KHUNTE
16-wp3813.24-J.odt
initiated against him, which was causing serious severe mental strain to
the petitioner on account of which he found himself unable to discharge
his duties and therefore, in view of the language of rule 46(5) of the
Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (for short "MCS
(Pension) Rules"), the petitioner was entitled to the benefit thereof being
taken back in service. We are not able to agree with this plea for the
reason, that there is no application by the petitioner under rule 46(5) in
the first place. Secondly, rule 45(5) can be invoked, on compliance with
the requirements as indicated in rule 46(4)(a) to (d). Rule 46(4)(c)
indicates, that the period of absence from duty between the date on which
resignation became effective and the date on which the person is allowed
to resume duty, as a result of permission to withdraw resignation should
not be more than 90 days, which would indicate, that any application for
withdrawal of resignation, should be made within a period of 90 days,
from the date on which the resignation is accepted. In the instant case, it is
an admitted position, that the application for treating the resignation as an
application for VRS, even presuming, that it could be so treated as an
application for withdrawal of the resignation, had been made on
18/03/2022, which is beyond the aforesaid period, as contemplated by
aforesaid period of 90 days and as contemplated by rule 46(4)(c) of the
MCS (Pension) Rules, on account of which, we do not see any reason to
accept this contention.
KHUNTE
16-wp3813.24-J.odt
5. It is further contended by Mr.Khan, learned counsel for the
petitioner, that even if the request of the petitioner either to treat the
application for resignation as an application for VRS or resumption in
terms of rule 46(4) of the MCS (Pension) Rules, is not considered, still the
petitioner would be entitled for grant of all the benefits, which a person
retiring from employment would be entitled, on account of the fact, that
the petitioner was appointed on 03/09/1997, & has completed the
qualifying service of 20 years in terms of rule 30 of the MCS (Pension)
Rules, read with rule 46(1).
6. The learned counsel for the respondents submit that once the
petitioner has resigned from the employment, there is no question of
granting pensionary or other benefits as resignation, entails forfeiture of
such benefits.
7. It is not in dispute, that the petitioner who was appointed on
03/09/1997 as an assistant teacher had submitted his resignation on
01/01/2019, which would indicate that the petitioner had put in more
than 20 years of service, which otherwise in terms of rule 30 of the MCS
(Pension) Rules entitles him to the retiral benefits. What is, therefore,
necessary to consider, is whether rule 46(1) results in forfeiture of such
benefits on resignation. The language of rule 46(1), therefore, being
material, is necessary to be considered, which reads as under:-
KHUNTE
16-wp3813.24-J.odt
"46. Forfeiture of service on resignation.
(1) The Government Servant who is appointed as per the
procedure prescribed in recruitment rules, resigns from
service before completion of 5 years of qualifying
service his service shall be forfeited."
8. A perusal of the language of rule 46(1) would indicate, that
forfeiture of the service, on account of resignation, would be the result, in
case such employee resigns before completion of five years of qualifying
service. This to us would indicate, that forfeiture, is contemplated, if the
resignation is at any time prior to the completion of five years of qualifying
service and in case the resignation is consequent thereto, the same would
not entail forfeiture and the employee would be entitled to all the benefits,
which such services, would provide him in terms of the rule applicable.
Neither learned AGP Ms Khan for the respondents-State, nor Mr.Dixit,
learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3, have been able to point
out to us any rule in the MCS (Pension) Rules, which entails forfeiture of
the entire benefits, which an employee would be otherwise entitled to
receive, in case the resignation, is beyond the period of five years of
qualifying service.
9. In the instant case, since it is not disputed that the petitioner was
appointed on 03/09/1997 and therefore, as on the date of the resignation
dated 01/01/2019 had already completed 20 years of employment, we
find, that the language of rule 46(1) does not entail forfeiture of his
KHUNTE
16-wp3813.24-J.odt
services, on his resignation, so as to dis-entitle him, from the benefits,
which would otherwise accrue to him, on account of completion of
qualifying service.
10. In view of the above discussion, we partly allow the petition, by
directing the respondents to consider the claim, of the petitioner for grant
of benefits on account of completion of the qualifying service in terms of
rule 30 of the MCS (Pension) Rules, and grant the same, if there is no
other impediment in that regard.
11. Rules is made absolute in the above terms. Considering the
circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J) (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J)
Signed by: Mr. G.S. Khunte
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
KHUNTE
Date: 21/04/2025 18:25:38
