Allowed

Dawalu Jatinga Tambre v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Jul 2013WP/908/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition where a retired labourer claimed denial of pension benefits due to lack of ten-year qualifying service. The court ruled that under Rule 110 and Rule 57 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, fractional years and previous service must be computed, entitling the petitioner to the claimed benefits.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed in terms of prayer clauses (C) and (C-1); Rule made absolute; no orders as to costs.

Dawalu Jatinga Tambre Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION No. 908 OF 2009

¶4

Dawalu s/o. Jatinga Tambre
Age 62 years, Occ. Retired
R/o. Soknathpur, Tal. Udgir
Dist. Latur.

¶5

.. PETITIONER/S

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1] The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Agriculture Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

¶8

2] Marathwada Krishi Vidyapith, Parbhani, through its Registrar,

¶9

3] The Associate Dean and Principal, College of Agriculture, Latur Taluka and Dist. Latur.

¶10

4] The Assistant Cotton Research Office,Somnathpur, Udgir, Taluka and Dist. Latur.

¶11

.. RESPONDENT/S

¶12

 Mr. A.V. Patil, Advocate for petitioner.
 Mrs. V.A. Shinde, AGP for respondent No. 1
 Mr. S.K. Kadam, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶13

CORAM :- A.H. JOSHI &
 SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, JJ.

¶14

DATE :- 17th July, 2013.

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT [ PER SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J] :-

¶17

1]Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

¶18

Heard finally by consent of parties.

¶19

2]The petitioner, who was appointed in the
year 1976 as a “Labourer” had been taken on
regular establishment on 11th July, 1996 and
later, retired on superannuation on 30th June,
2006.

¶20

3]The grievance of the petitioner in this
petition is that he has been denied retiral
benefits on the ground that he has failed to
complete 10 year's qualifying service from the
date of taking him on regular establishment i.e.
31th July, 1996. Though he has worked for a period
of 9 years, 11 months and 12 days and assuming as
such that he fails to complete 10 years
qualifying service.

¶21

4]Petitioner refers to sub-rule(3) of Rule

¶22

¶23

110 as well as Rule 57 of the Maharashtra Civil
Services (Pension) Rules, for giving benefit of
the same for calculation of qualifying service.

¶24

5]Perusal of sub-rule (3) of Rule 110,
shows that in calculating the length of qualifying
service, fraction of a year is equal to 3 months
and above shall be treated as completing one and
half year and reckoned as qualifying service.

¶25

That apart, under Rule 57, the petitioner
also appears to be entitled for computation of one
and half of his previous continuous service before
he was brought on regular establishment. The
petitioner has, for that purpose, relied upon
judgments of Division Benches of this court in
Writ Petition No. 2016 of 2010 dated 21st
September, 2010, Writ Petition No. 7170 of 2010,
dated 22nd February, 2011 and and Writ Petition
no. 3271 of 2011, dated 22nd August, 2011, dealing
with the similar situation.

¶26

¶27

6]In the circumstances, the petitioner is

¶28

entitled to benefits claimed by him in terms of
prayer clause (C) and (C-1) of the Writ petition.

¶29

7]In the result, writ petition is allowed
in terms of prayer clauses (C) and (C-1). Rule
made absolute accordingly. There shall be no
orders as to costs.

¶30

8]Civil application No. 3068 of 2012 stands

¶31

disposed of.

¶32

[SUNIL P. DESHMUKH,J][A.H. JOSHI,J]

¶33

grt/-.

Dawalu Jatinga Tambre v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dawalu Jatinga Tambre 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Premila Kashinath Mathpati Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kavita Narayan Sawant Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Madhav Shankar Bashetti Vs Nanded Waghala City Municipal Corporation and Others

Sk. Salim Sk. Basha and Ors. Vs Mohammed Abdul Khaja Rahimoddin and Ors.

Gangadhar Papanna Allamwar Vs the St Certificate Verification Committee Aurangabad.

Bhagwan Dhondiram Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another