Partly allowed

Sripati Apparao Rokade v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC19 Apr 2005WP/4034/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court directed respondents to consider or re-read petitioner's service from 15th Sept 1964 to 17th Feb 1969 for pension benefits within six months, noting delay prevented pay fixation.

What did the court decide?

Directions to consider specific service period for pension benefits or re-calculate pension and benefits within six months.

Sripati Apparao Rokade Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

-1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.4034 OF 1998

¶4

Shri Shripati Alpparao Rokade, ) Age 59 years, Occ. Retired, ) Govt. Servant, R/o.B-119/2, ) Govt. Colony, Bandra (E), ) Mumbai-400 051. )..PETITIONER Versus 1. State of Maharashtra ) through the Section Officer, ) Education & Employment Dept.,) Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032. ) 2. State of Maharashtra ) through the Section Officer, ) General Administrative ) Department, Mantralaya, ) Mumbai-400 032. ) 3. National Cadet Corps ) through Group Head Quarter, ) Mumbai (B) through its ) Administrative Officer, ) Having office at Old ) Sachivalaya, Mumbai-400 032. ) 4. Deputy Director of Education ) Greater Mumbai, Old Custom ) House, Fort, Mumbai. )..Respodnents

¶5

Mr. N.V. Bandiwadekar, for the Petitioner. Mr.R.M.Patne,AGP for the Respondent Nos.1,2 & 4.

¶6

CORAM: F.I. REBELLO & S.P.KUKDAY, JJ. DATE : 19th April,2005

¶7

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER F.I. REBELLO, J):

¶8

The petitioner was in the service of the

¶9

. Armed	Forces		from	30th June,	1956	till he	was
discharged	on		11th	August, 196	4.	The	petitioner
thereafter	joined		as	L.D.C. in	the	N.C.C.	and
worked	there		from	15th Septem	ber, 1964	till	24th
December,	1968.		As	there was	disbandment	of the	Unit
of	N.C.C.		the	petitioners his	services	came to	an
end.	He w	as	subseq	uently appointed	as a	Clerk i	n the

¶10

-2-

¶11

office	of the	Labo	ur Commission	er and	worked	from
18th	February,	1969	till 31st	January,	1996.	By
order	dated 26th		August, 1996	the	Government	of
Maharashtra	was	pleased	to con	done the	break	in
service	between	12th	August,	1964 to	14th	September,
1964	and 29th	Dec	ember, 1968	to 17th	February,	1969.
By	para.1 of	the	said order	his service	in	Military
from 3	0th July,	1956	to 11th	August, 1964	was	allowed

¶12

to be counted in full towards his pension in

¶13

accordance with the Rules.

¶14

2.	The petitioner m	ade representation on 2	6th
November,	1996 to	refix seniority	in the	cadre	of
Clerk/Typist	in the	office of	Labour	Co	mmissioner
after	taking into	consideration	his	previous	service
from	15th September,	1964.	The petitio	ner has	since
retired	and as such	the relief	even if	prayed	would
have	been infructuous	and even	otherwise	such	a
relief	could not	have been	granted.	The	second
relief	was for fixa	tion of pay	in C	ommissioner	of
Labour’s	office from	18th Februar	y, 1969	and	counting

¶15

for increments from 15th September, 1964. That the

¶16

relief was also not granted.

¶17

3.	The peti	tioner filed	Original	Applic	ation
No.1187	of 19992	whi	ch	was	disposed	of	on	22nd
October,	1997.	The	Tribu	nal	noted	that	the	limited
question	which will	have	to		be co	nsidered	was	whether
the	petitioner had	made	out	a	case	for	condonat	ion of
his	services	for fi	xation	of	his	pay,		increments,

¶18

-3-

¶19

etc. It noted that the petitioner was appointed as a fresh candidate in the Labour Department after he was

¶20

retrenched from N.C.C. and for that reason refused

¶21

to grant relief as also on the ground of limitation.

¶22

4.	At the	hearing of	this peti	tion on beha	lf of
the	petitioners	t	heir	learned	Coun	sel	submits	that
the	petitioner	ought	to	have	been	given	benefit	of
continuous	serv	ice	inc	luding		increme	nts,	etc.,
considering	that	his	de	emed	period	of	appointment	in
N.C.S.	was	from	12th	August,	1964.	As	he has	not
been	granted the	same	he	prays	for	the	reliefs.	In
the	alternative	it	is	also	prayed	that	atleast	for

¶23

the purpose of pension his services from 12th August,

¶24

1964 which has not been done.

¶25

We have heard learned Counsel for the

¶26

parties.	Con	sidering	the	various	ord	ers p	assed	we	do
not	think th	at	the p	etitioner	is	entitled		to	fixation
of his	salary	and	pay in	terms	as	sought	for.	At	the
highest	at the	tim	e of	joining	the	post	either	in	the
N.C.C.	or		Labour	Commiss	ioner’s	office		the	last
drawn	pay	could	have	been	p	rotected.		There	is
nothing	before	us	to show	whether	it	was	so	done	or
not.	Even	now	considering	the	lapse	of	so	many	years

¶27

in our opinion it will not be possible to consider

¶28

granting such a relief.

¶29

The question which really arises for consideration is whether considering the break in

¶30

-4-

¶31

service	the	service in N.C.S. s	hould be	counted
along	with	the period of	work in	Labour
Commissio	ner’s	office for working	out	pensionary
benefits	consid	ering that the period	of break	of
service	from	25th December, 1968 a	nd 18th	February,
1969	has been	condoned. It is no	doubt true	that the
break	in	services from 12th August,	1964 and	15th
September	, 1964	has already been	condoned.	We,
however,	find	that if the services	rendered in	N.C.C.
has	not	been considered for the	purpose of	working
out	the p	etitioner’s pensionary benefits	then in	that
event	that	will have to be done	so, considering	the

¶32

order dated 26th August, 1976. In the light of that,

¶33

the following order:-

¶34

In the event the petitioner’s services from

¶35

15th Se	ptember,	1964 til	l 17	th Fe	bruary,	1969 h	as not
been	considered	for	the	purpose	of	his	pensionary
benefits,	the	Respondents	are	directed	to	do so	and
if not	counted	then	to	refix	the	petitioner’s	pension
accordingly	and	pay	him		all	benefits	including
arrears	cons	equential	benefits.		The	entire	exercise

¶36

to be completed in six months. Rule made partly

¶37

absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.

¶38

(F.I. REBELLO, J.)

¶39

(S.P. KUKDAY, J.)

Sripati Apparao Rokade v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sripati Apparao Rokade v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahankali Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and Anr. Vs Union of India

Megha Mahadev Uplane and Ors. Vs Shivaji University and Ors.

Shivanand Shakti Kumar and Ors. Vs Shivaji University and Ors.

Crest Paper Mills Ltd. and Anr. Vs Union of India

Mrs. Vasanti Pravin Rathod and Anr. Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer and Ros.

Aba Ganpat Patil Vs Executive Engineer, M.B.R. and R..B