Allowed

Chandrakanta Bhavanidas Gulati v. Municipal Corpn. of Gr. Bombay and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC20 Dec 2013WP/2161/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, exercising writ jurisdiction, directed the respondent corporation to pay the petitioner's retirement pension and dues as a Trained Teacher effective her retirement date. The court ordered payment based on revised scales and interest on arrears, allowing for adjustment of any minimum pension already received.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Corporation to pay pension and retirement dues w.e.f. 30.11.2003 as per revised scales with 9% interest on arrears from 1.6.2004.

Chandrakanta Bhavanidas Gulati Vs Municipal… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2013)

(WP 2161 of 2012)

VAT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 2161 OF 2012

¶6

Chandrakanta Bhavanidas Gulathi Vs.

¶7

...Petitioner

¶8

M.C.G.M. & Ors. ...Respondents

¶9

¶10

Mr.R. G.Walia for Petitioner Mr.S.S. Pakale with Mr. Vinod Mahadik for Corporation

¶11

¶12

CORAM : V. M. KANADE & M.S. SONAK, JJ.

¶13

DATE : DECEMBER 20, 2013

¶14

P.C.

¶15

Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation.

¶16

By this petition, which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is seeking an appropriate writ, order and direction, directing the Respondent No.1 Corporation to pay the retirement benefits to the Petitioner as a Trained Teacher w.e.f. 30.11.2003 along with arrears and interest on the said amount.

1/3

(WP 2161 of 2012)

In this case, the Petitioner was appointed as a Assistant Teacher in Respondent No.4 School on 19.7.1972. The Petitioner had acquired her D.Ed. qualification in the year 1980 and the BMC had granted Trained Teacher Scale to the Petitioner in the year 1980-81. The Petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.11.2003. Respondent No.4 had sent all the relevant papers to Respondent No.1 Corporation for pension. However, the said application could not be processed and, therefore, the Petitioner constrained to file this petition in the Court.

¶21

An affidavit in reply has been filed on behalf of the Corporation by the Education Officer. In paragraph 2 of the said affidavit in reply, the Corporation has stated that the Petitioner is entitled to receive the full trained teachers pensionary benefits from the date of her retirement i.e. 30^th November, 2003 as per the revised pensionary benefits vide Circular dated 24^th August, 2012 as admissible to her post viz. Assistant Trained Teacher. The Corporation in paragraph 3 has further stated that the decision has been taken to initiate departmental proceeding against the erring officers.

¶22

In view of the affidavit in reply filed by the Corporation, the writ petition. The Corporation is directed to make the payment i.e. pension and other retirement dues as stated by them in paragraph 2 of the affidavit in reply w.e.f. 30^th November, 2003 as a Trained Teacher as per the revised pay scale from 1^st April,2000 issued vide Circular dated 24^th August, 2012. The Corporation would also pay

¶23

2/3

¶24

¶25

VAISHALI TIKAM

¶26

(WP 2161 of 2012)

¶27

the interest at the rate of 9% on the retirement dues and pension from the date of her retirement i.e. from 1^st June, 2004 till the actual payment. The amount which is already paid to the Petitioner as minimum pension shall be adjusted towards retirement dues. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶28

[M.S. SONAK, J.] [V. M. KANADE, J.]

¶29

3/3

Chandrakanta Bhavanidas Gulati v. Municipal Corpn. of Gr. Bombay and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrakanta Bhavanidas Gulati v. Municipal Corpn. of Gr. Bombay and 3 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

Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking (of the Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika) Vs A.P. Sales Corporation and Anr.

Deepak Shamsundar Gavaskar Vs Mumbai Building Repair and Re-Construction and 2 Ors.

M/S.Vardhman Developers Limited Vs Union of India the Secretary Minister of Environment and Forrest and 3ORS

Margarida Quadros Vs Union of India and Anr.

Mahar Parwati Kumar Singh Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and 3 Ors.

Vikrant Subodh Sawatkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.