Disposed

Mrs. Urmila Laxman Nikam v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC15 Oct 2012WP/5880/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition regarding pension eligibility, the High Court of Bombay permitted the petitioner to submit additional documentary evidence to prove her marital relationship. The Court directed respondents to consider this evidence within two weeks and pass an appropriate decision within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; petitioner permitted to submit additional documents within two weeks; respondents directed to decide within six weeks.

Mrs. Urmila Laxman Nikam Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

wp.5880.2011.doc

¶2

dik

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 5880 OF 2011

¶5

Mrs. Urmila Laxman Nikam ..Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..Respondents

¶8

Mr.A.M.Joshi for the petitioner. Ms.M.P.Thakur for the respondent No.1. Mr.U.P.Warunjikar for the respondent Nos.2 to 5.

¶9

CORAM : D.D.SINHA AND SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J J.

¶10

DATE : OCTOMBER 15, 2012.

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner as

¶13

well as for the respondents. Perused the affidavit dated 20th September, 2012 filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 to 5. Relevant portion of para No.2 reads thus;

¶14

"However, the circular of the Finance Department is applicable. I further say that the office of the Education Officer ( Primary ) called for the certified copies of the pension papers of the petitioner from the School Board, Municipal Corporation, Pune. However, after going through the same, it was found that the name of the deceased husband of the petitioner is not

¶15

Pg 1 of 3

¶16

wp.5880.2011.doc

¶17

mentioned as a family member of the petitioner. Similarly, no joint photograph of the husband and wife has been affixed by the present Petitioner on the pension papers. Similarly, the particulars of the family is left blank by the petitioner. It is submitted that along with the letter dated 8.8.2012 all the particulars were received from the School Board, Pune Municipal Corporation"

¶18

Relevant portion of Para 3 reads thus :-

¶19

" Based on the same, it is stated that the petitioner is not family member of the deceased husband as per the pension papers from the Government record. Therefore, the petitioner herein cannot be allowed to take undue advantage of Maharashtra Civil Services ( Pension ) Rules 1981”

¶20

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, the petitioner has now collected the additional documentary evidence in order to establish and prove the fact that the petitioner is the wife of Laxman Baburao Nikam. Therefore, in the interest of justice we feel appropriate to permit the petitioner to place this documentary evidence before the respondent Nos.2 to 5 and expect the respondents to consider the same and take appropriate decision in this regard in accordance with the law. Documents are to be

¶21

Pg 2 of 3

¶22

wp.5880.2011.doc

¶23

submitted within two weeks and decision to be taken six weeks thereafter. With these observations and directions the petition is disposed of by keeping all the contentions of the parties open.

¶24

[ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [ D.D.SINHA, J. ]

¶25

/kukIik dks”Vh

¶26

Pg 3 of 3

Mrs. Urmila Laxman Nikam v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Urmila Laxman Nikam 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

Anup Sachanand Harchandrai Vs Bank of India and Anr.

Santosh Gulabrao Dudhane and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shivaji Dattatray Pawar Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Abdulla Abdul Hamid Natalwala and Ors. Vs the Controller of Accommodation

Theodore Xavier Machado Vs U.O.I through Director General Dept. of Revenue Intelligence and Ors.

M/S Nikivik Tube Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Metafield Coils Pvt. Ltd.