Allowed

Shri Shivram Pandurang Chipkar v. the Accountant General, (a and E) - 1, Mumbai and Anr.

Bombay HC11 Sept 2007WP/991/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed administrative orders regarding the petitioner's pension stoppage and lump sum conversion options, holding that the respondents violated natural justice by issuing them without a hearing. The court directed the respondents to hear the petitioner within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 6th July, 2005, and 10th August, 2005, and associated exhibits were quashed, and the respondent was directed to hear the petitioner within four weeks.

Shri Shivram Pandurang Chipkar Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

O. O. C. J.

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.991 OF 2007

¶5

Shivram Pandurang Chipkar Vs.

¶6

The Accountant General (A & E) -1 Mumbai & another

¶7

..Petitioner.

¶8

..Respondents.

¶9

Mr. S.D. Dighe for the Petitioner. Ms.Geeta Shastri, AGP for the State.

¶10

CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.

¶11

11^th September, 2007.

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶14

The challenge in the present Petition is to three different

¶15

orders which have been annexed to the Writ Petition as Exh. D, G and H respectively. As far as the grievance of the Petitioner in

¶16

regard to the date of retirement is concerned, that does not survive inasmuch as the Respondent on its own had already corrected the date of retirement of the Petitioner as 9^th November, 1990 in place of 2^nd September, 1993.

¶17

As far as the orders dated 6^th July, 2005 and 10^th August,

¶18

¶19

2005 are concerned, they relate to the payment of pension, stoppage of pension and other consequential benefits flowing therefrom. According to the Respondents, the Petitioner had exercised his option for payment of lump sum pension in lieu of regular pension and therefore, he was overpaid and nothing was payable to the Petitioner on account of the pension account. These facts are disputed by the Petitioner. According to the Petitioner, he had never exercised the option of lump sum pension and was entitled to regular pension according to rules which has been arbitrarily stopped by the Respondents.

¶20

In the light of the aforesaid facts, no hearing was granted to the Petitioner by either of the Respondents. The action of the Respondents is in violation of natural justice. Apparently it may be an administrative order, but certainly visits the Petitioner with civil consequences and it was mandatory on the part of the Respondents to give hearing to the Petitioner before passing such an order practically relating to stoppage of pension or payment of any kind to the Petitioner. Resultantly we have no hesitation in quashing and setting aside the orders at Exhibits D, G and H to the Petition and the same stand quashed, with a direction to the

¶21

¶22

Respondents to hear the Petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within four weeks from today. If any dues on account of pension are found to be due, the same shall be paid along with the letter / order to be passed by the Respondents. If any adverse order is passed, the Petitioner is at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is disposed of leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

¶23

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶24

DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.

Shri Shivram Pandurang Chipkar v. the Accountant General, (a and E) - 1, Mumbai and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Shivram Pandurang Chipkar v. the Accountant General, (a and E) - 1, Mumbai and Anr.

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

The State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs Kundalik Balu Pavanekar and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs Ganapat Laxman Mhatre D/H Shantabai Ganpat Mhatre and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs Narayan Sitaram Mhatre and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Ganesh Pandurang Tandel

The State of Maharashtra Vs Ganesh Pandurang Tandel

Milind Nagar a Co-Operative Housing Society Vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.