Allowed

Syed Afzaluddin Ustad Abdul Samad v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Bombay HC24 Aug 2011WP/815/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the petitioner is entitled to count half of his service rendered before regularisation for pension determination under Rule 57, overriding the estoppel argument. The court directed payment of pension and arrears within specified timelines.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders quashed; petitioner entitled to pension; respondents to pay pension and arrears within specified timelines.

Syed Afzaluddin Ustad Abdul Samad Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

(1) JUD-815.2011-WP

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 815 OF 2011

¶4

Syed Afzaluddin Ustad S/o Abdul Samad
Age : 65 years, Occu.: Nil,
Resident of 7 Bhai Masjid,
Hadkali Galli, Ustad Kirana
Udgir, District Latur PETITIONER

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

1. The State of Maharashtra
 Through Secretary Nagar Vikas
 Vibhag Department Mantralaya,
 Mumbai-400 032.

¶7

 (Copy to be served on
 Government Pleader,
 High Court, Aurangabad)

¶8

2. The Chief Officer, Municipality Udgir, Taluka Udgir, District Latur RESPONDENTS

¶9

.....

¶10

Mrs. A.N. Ansari, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. V.D. Rakh, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State.
Mr. P.V. Barde, Advocate for the respondent no.2

¶11

.....

¶12

CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND
 M.T. JOSHI, JJ.

¶13

 DATED : 24TH AUGUST, 2011

¶14

JUDGMENT (PER - M.T. JOSHI, J.):

¶15

1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
Heard by consent.

¶16

2.The petitioner seeks a declaration that his

¶17

(2) JUD-815.2011-WP

¶18

services as daily wages on the establishment of respondent no.2 Municipal Council, Udgir be counted as per Rule 57 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (for short " the said Rules ") and be held as completed qualifying service of more than 10 years. A consequential declaration is also sought that the impugned orders dated 24.1.2006 and 12.3.2008 rejecting his claim be quashed and set aside.

¶19

3.The petitioner was Class-IV employee on

¶20

daily wages with the respondent no.2 since the year
1987. His services came to be regularised alongwith
number of other similarly situated employees vide
respondent no.1-Government of Maharashtra's direction
dated 29.12.2000. He was superannuated on 31.8.2005.

¶21

At the time of regularising the services, the
respondent no.1 had declared that none of the
employees shall claim any financial or other benefits
by counting the earlier service rendered by them on

¶22

daily wages. Therefore, the request of the

¶23

petitioner for grant of pension was refused.

¶24

4.The respondent no.2 submits that since at

¶25

(3) JUD-815.2011-WP

¶26

the time of regularisation of the services, the
petitioner agreed that his past services would not be
counted for any purposes and now he is not entitled
for any pensionary benefits by computing his earlier

¶27

service. Mr. Barde, learned counsel for the

¶28

respondent no.2 submitted that the petitioner is now
estopped from claiming the benefit, as he has
accepted the condition to regularisation of the
services that he would not claim any benefit of the
past services. Reliance is placed in the cases of

¶29

(i) Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Union of India
and ors. AIR 2006 S.C. 3229, (ii) Krishna Bahadur v.
M/s. Purna Theatre and ors. AIR 2004 S.C. 4282,
(iii) State of Tripura and ors. Vs. K.K. Roy AIR 2004
S.C. 1249 and (iv) Prabhakar S/o Marotirao Dalal Vs.
State of Maharashtra and anr. 2008(5) ALL MR 306.
In all the cases, the principle of estoppel was held
to be operative against the concerned persons since
they on fact had agreed contrary to their claims made
in the Court.

¶30

5. In the present case, the petitioner is relying

¶31

over the provisions of Rule 57 and more particularly
note 1 of the said Rules for computation of past

¶32

(4) JUD-815.2011-WP

¶33

services. Therefore, there cannot be estoppel

¶34

against the statutory instrument.

¶35

6.Besides this, the petitioner has relied in
the similar declaration made by the Division Bench of
this Court presided over by the Hon'ble the Chief
Justice in Writ Petition no. 1542 of 2008 dated
25.8.2010. In the said case, another employee of
respondent no.2-Municipal Council, Udgir sought the
similar relief, whose services were also regularised
by the respondent no.2. When his similar claim was
refused by the respondent no.2 in the Writ Petition,
he relied over the provisions of Rule 57 Note 1 of
the said Rules and this Court has allowed the
Petition.

¶36

7.In view of the above circumstances, the
Petition will have to be allowed and the benefits of
provisions of note 1 of Rule 57 of the said Rules
will be applicable in his case. Accordingly, we hold

¶37

that the half of the services of the petitioner
rendered between 16.2.1987 to 29.12.2000 are entitled
to be counted for determining the pensionable service
of the petitioner. If that is counted, the service

¶38

(5) JUD-815.2011-WP

¶39

of the petitioner comes to more than 10 years. In
that view of the matter, we hold that the petitioner
is entitled to pensionary benefits. The respondents
shall take necessary steps for giving the pensionary
benefits to the petitioner within a period of two (2)
months from today and start making actual payment of
the pension within a period of three (3) months from
today.

¶40

8.It is further directed that all arrears of
the pension shall be cleared within a period of six
(6) months from today. Rule is made absolute in the
above terms.

¶41

 Sd/- Sd/-
 [M. T. JOSHI, J.] [B. R. GAVAI, J.]
arp/

Syed Afzaluddin Ustad Abdul Samad v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Afzaluddin Ustad Abdul Samad v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Gajanan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Yaldari Camp Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

M/S Royal Plastics Indutries through Proprietor Vs the Chief Engineer Maharashtra State Electricity Districution Company Ltd. Aurangabad and Ors.

Shaikh Shaukat Ali Liyakat Ali Shaikh Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Ors.

Hanuman Narhari Dhanve Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Madhavrao Gabajirao Pimpaliskar Vs the State of Maharashra and Ors.

Rekha Sayanna Totawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.