Disposed

Sayyed Ajij Abbas v. the Divisional Controller Msrtc Ahmedngar and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Oct 2013WP/1416/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed for pension entitlement. Court granted time for documents but found petitioner failed to produce them. Petition disposed of as petitioner can collect data and move appropriate representation within three months.

What did the court decide?

High Court disposed of petition granting liberty to petitioner to collect data and submit representation within three months.

Sayyed Ajij Abbas Vs the Divisional… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

(1)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.

¶3

Writ Petition No. 1416 of 2011

¶4

Sayyed Ajij Abbas, Age : 66 years, Occupation : Retired, R/o. Jamkhed, Taluka : Jamkhed, District : Ahmednagar. .. Petitioner.

¶5

versus

¶6

The Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T.C., Ahmednagar.

¶7

The Accountant General, Office of the Accountant General (A.& E.)-II, Maharashtra, Civil Lines, Nagpur.

¶8

The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Region Office, Nidhi Bhawan, MIDC Area, Satpur, Nashik. .. Respondents.

¶9

Mr. K.S. Bhore, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. B.S. Deshmukh, Advocate, for respondent no.1.

¶11

Mr. P.P. More, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.2.

¶12

Mr. K.B. Chaudhary, Advocate, for respondent no.3.

¶13

(2)

¶14

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ.

¶15

DATE : 23RD OCTOBER 2013

¶16

COURT'S ORDER (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) :

¶17

Heard Adv. Mr. K.S. Bhore for the petitioner, Adv. Mr. B.S. Deshmukh for respondent no.1, learned AGP Mr. P.P. More for respondent no.2, and Adv. Mr. K.B. Chaudhary for respondent no.3.

¶18

Demand is of pension. Service rendered is from 1968 to 2003. Document showing deduction of contribution towards pension is for the period from December 1998 to March 1999. The respondent / MSRTC has denied entitlement of the petitioner as per 1971 Scheme.

¶19

On 4th September 2013, this Court granted petitioner time to produce relevant documents. Petitioner could not get those documents. Adv. Mr. Bhore states that effort was made under the Right to Information Act. The respondents could not provide documents as same are not available.

¶20

Adv. Mr. K.B. Chaudhary appearing for respondent no.3 informs that Form 10-C submitted by the petitioner for settlement of claim between 1998 to 2003 is already settled on 4-8-2005. Adv. Mr. Bhore disputes this.

¶21

As the petitioner could have collected all relevant

¶22

(3)

¶23

information, we find it not necessary to look into all these disputed questions. It is still open to the petitioner to collect relevant data from his friends and move appropriate representation. If such representation is made by the petitioner within a period of three months from today, respondent no.1 shall decide it, in accordance with law, within further period of three months.

¶24

With the said liberty and leaving all rival contentions open, we dispose of the petition. No costs.

¶25

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE ) ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE JUDGE

¶26

bgp/1416wp

Sayyed Ajij Abbas v. the Divisional Controller Msrtc Ahmedngar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sayyed Ajij Abbas v. the Divisional Controller Msrtc Ahmedngar 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

Jain Social Federations Anandrishiji Hospital and Medical Research Center Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Amita Devidasrao Chate Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Umesh Devidas Khaladkar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shivani Estate Brokers and Developers Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bharati Shikshan Sanstha Pimprala through President and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rajendra Madanlal Pipada Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.