Disposed

Ananda Ukha More v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Dec 2011WP/3910/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought pension benefits despite unauthorized absenteeism. Court directed authorities to expedite consideration of his pension proposal pending Government decision and disposed of writ petition without expressing final opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to authorities to expedite consideration of petitioner's pension proposal pending decision on regularization. Costs to respondents withdrawn.

Ananda Ukha More Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

1 W.P. No.3910 of 2010

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

Writ Petition No.3910 of 2010 With Civil Application No.12419 of 2010

¶4

Ananda s/o Ukha More.

¶5

.. Petitioner.

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Others. .. Respondents.

¶8

Shri. S.S. Pawar, Advocate for petitioner.

¶9

Shri. V.B. Ghatge, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent No.1.

¶10

Shri. Deelip Patil Bankar, Advocate, for respondent No2.

¶11

Shri. V.G. Salgare, Advocate, for respondent Nos.3 and 4.

¶12

CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & M.T. JOSHI, JJ.

¶13

DATE 5^th DECEMBER 2011

¶14

PER COURT :

¶15

Heard.

¶16

The petitioner seeks direction to grant benefit of pension, gratuity, provident fund in accordance with law. The petitioner further prays for issuance of directions

¶17

2 W.P. No.3910 of 2010 to decide his application dated 5-1-2009 addressed to respondent Nos.2 and 3. According to the petitioner, he was appointed in the year 1965. On 27-9-1992 the petitioner was on 3 days' leave but thereafter he could not resume duties due to his health. In the year 2004 the petitioner reported to the authorities and requested for allowing him to join duties. The petitioner was not allowed to join duties.

¶18

Respondent No.2 filed affidavit in reply. In para 7 of the reply the deponent contends that :

¶19

“ 7. The respondent submits that, if the petitioner submits the appropriate proposal in the prescribed format with necessary information and certificates of competent authorities to this respondent / Zilla Parishad through the concerned Block Education Officer for consideration / regularisation of his long standing unauthorised absenteeism, the same would be considered on its own merits in accordance with law and if warranted to be forwarded to the higher competent authorities / government for their appropriate consideration and as per the decision therein, the complete pension proposal, if filed by the petitioner in prescribed formats with all necessary information, certificates, service record, nominations, undertakings etc. through the concerned Block Education Officer, the same would also be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law for the purpose of provisiona/ final pensionary benefits etc.”

¶20

3 W.P. No.3910 of 2010

¶21

Learned counsel Shri. Bankar Patil submits that the petitioner has been granted provisional pension up to December 2011. Petitioner's absence for 13 years from duties is under consideration of the authorities. After the decision is arrived at further steps could be taken by the authorities. Till then the issue of grant of final pension requires to be kept in abeyance. The counsel submits that the Divisional Commissioner raised certain queries which are required to be answered.

¶22

We have perused the documents placed on record. We find in the facts of the case, that after the Divisional Commissioner / State Government takes a decision, the issue of grant of pension could be raised by the petitioner.

¶23

We expect the authorities to take appropriate steps expeditiously.

¶24

Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 submits that consequent to the order passed by this Court on 9^th August 2010 an amount of Rs.20,000/-

¶25

4 W.P. No.3910 of 2010

¶26

each was deposited by the respondent Nos.3 and 4. The counsel has explained the circumstances resulting in non appearance of respondent Nos.3 and 4 at the relevant time.

¶27

Considering the submissions advanced we observe that in future responsible officers of the Zilla Parishad shall take a note and instruct that the Court matters shall be attended to promptly and diligently.

¶28

We take lenient view in the facts of the case and allow the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to withdraw the amount of Rs.20,000/- each deposited with the registry of this Court.

¶29

The writ petition is disposed of. Civil Application stands disposed of. We have not expressed any final opinion on merits.

¶30

Sd/- Sd/- (M.T. JOSHI, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.)

¶31

rsl

Ananda Ukha More v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ananda Ukha More v. the 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaikh Gulab Shaikh Ahmed and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Rajpal Sahebrao Thakur Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Gulab Shabbir Gulam Dastgir Vs the State of Mahrashtra

Najmunbee Badesaheb Sayyad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.