Allowed

Dattu Saidu Shinde v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC29 Sept 2014WP/3061/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that the petitioner's daily wager service must be counted as half under Rule 57 of the MCS (Pension) Rules, 1982, and decided that converting this service completes the required qualifying period for pension.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner entitled to pension if total service (half-rate daily wager + regular) completes qualifying period; prayer for interest not granted.

Dattu Saidu Shinde Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

- 1 -

¶2

WP 3061/14

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

 WRIT PETITION NO.3061/2014

¶6

Shri Dattu S/o Saidu Shinde.

¶7

...Petitioner..

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Maharashtra & others.

¶10

...Respondents...

¶11

 .....

¶12

Shri A.V. Indrale Patil, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri K.G. Patil, AGP for respondent no.1.
Shri P.G. Rodge, Advocate for respondent nos.2 & 3.
Respondent no.4 served.

¶13

 .....

¶14

CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA & A.M. BADAR, JJ.

¶15

DATE: 29.09.2014

¶16

ORDER :

¶17

1]Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶18

2]Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the

¶19

service of the petitioner with Vasantrao Naik Marathwada

¶20

Krishi Vidyapith from 1976 to 1999 has not been

¶21

considered while considering the case of the petitioner

¶22

for pension. As per Rule 57 of the Maharashtra Civil

¶23

Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, the earlier service of

¶24

the petitioner rendered as daily wager has to be counted

¶25

WP 3061/14

¶26

- 2 -

¶27

half for the purpose of pension. Learned counsel for the
petitioner relies on various judgments passed by this
Court as such as in Writ Petition No.7170/2010 dated
22.2.2011, in Writ Petition No.3271/2011 dated 22.8.2011
and in Writ Petition No.2016/2010 dated 21.9.2010.

¶28

3]Learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 & 3 submits
that Vasantrao Naik Marathwada Krishi Vidyapith is not a
party to the petition. According to the learned counsel,
the requirements of Rule 57 and Note to Rule 57 of the
MCS (Pension) Rules are not satisfied. The learned
counsel submits that the post is not a converted post.
The order bringing the petitioner on regular
establishment itself would make it clear. The petitioner
has worked for 9 years 10 months and 8 days and as such
is not entitled for pension. The same does not
tantamount to qualifying service for pension.

¶29

4]We have considered the submissions canvassed by the
learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶30

5]The facts in the present case are akin to the facts
in Writ Petition No.7170/2010.

¶31

6]There is a certificate issued in favour of the
petitioner clarifying that the petitioner has worked from

¶32

WP 3061/14

¶33

- 3 -

¶34

the years 1976 to 1999 as a daily wager. The fact that

¶35

the petitioner has worked with the said institution is
not a disputed fact. The petitioner thereafter vide
order dated 9.5.1999 has been brought to regular
establishment. The services rendered earlier as a daily
wager in view of Rule 57 will have to be counted half.

¶36

7]On counting the said service as half and the service
on regular establishment, the petitioner completes the
period required for qualifying service.

¶37

8]In the light of above, the writ petition is allowed
in terms of prayer clause (C) except the prayer for grant
of interest. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
No order as to costs.

¶38

ndk/ c2991434.doc

Dattu Saidu Shinde v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dattu Saidu Shinde v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Shoeb Mohammad Abdul Hafeez Vs the Divisional Caste Certificate Verirfication Committee No 2

Nishat Zareen Abdul Hafeez Vs the Divisional Caste Certificate Verification Committee No 2

Suman Anantrao Lamture Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Pramod Daulatrao Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vimal Rajendra Gosavi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Jai Kedarnath Sevabhavi Sanstha, Wakad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others