Allowed

Shobha Punjappa Jangam v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC12 Sept 2014WP/5620/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court of Judicature at Bombay allowed a Writ Petition challenging the refusal of family pension. The Court held that a Government Circular was fully applicable, allowing the petitioner to claim the pension from her deceased husband's date of death.

What did the court decide?

Family pension to be provided to the Petitioner from the date of death of Punjappa Jangam; Rule made absolute.

Shobha Punjappa Jangam Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

wp5620.99

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.5620 OF 1999

¶6

Smt. Shobha Widow of Punjappa Jangam,
Age-Major, Occupation:Household,
R/o-Nanded, Taluka and District-Nanded.

¶7

...PETITIONER

¶8

 VERSUS

¶9

1) The State of Maharashtra,

¶10

Through the Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032,

¶11

2) Zilla Parishad, Nanded, Through its Chief Executive Officer, Nanded, District-Nanded.

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

...

¶14

 Shri H.B. Nandagawale Advocate h/f. Shri V.G.
 Sakolkar Advocate for Petitioner.

¶15

 Shri P.P. More, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1.
 Respondent No.2 served.

¶16

...

¶17

CORAM: A.V. NIRGUDE AND

¶18

 A.I.S. CHEEMA, JJ.

¶19

 DATE : 12TH SEPTEMBER, 2014

¶20

wp5620.99

¶21

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT [PER A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] :

¶23

1. Heard.

¶24

2.This Petition challenges order dated 10th

¶25

November, 1998 refusing family pension to the
Petitioner passed by the Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Nanded. The facts leading to this
litigation, in short, can be stated as under:

¶26

.The Petitioner is wife of one Punjappa
Jangam, who was a freedom fighter and was
conferred a Sanman Patra by Chief Minister in
1968. Punjappa was appointed as Mistri Grade-2 by

¶27

Zilla Parishad in 1964 but at that time he was not
regular employee. He was given fixed pay. His
services were regularized in 1970. In 1975 he
reached age of superannuation. He expired on 4th
January, 1985. There is no dispute between the

¶28

parties that in view of the above facts, the

¶29

qualifying service of Punjappa was 8 years and 5
months.

¶30

wp5620.99

¶31

¶32

3.From the facts mentioned above, it is

¶33

clear that Punjappa joined service of Zilla
Parishad at later stage of his career and that was
the reason why he could not complete qualifying
service of 10 years for getting pensionery
benefits. Rather belatedly, after Punjappa's death
the Petitioner approached Zilla Parishad and
sought family pension. Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Nanded, by passing impugned order,

¶34

refused her such benefit. Despite the fact that
Punjappa had qualifying service of 8 years and 5
months, the Petitioner's claim that in view of the
Circular dated 4th March 1991, issued by the
Government providing certain benefits of addition
in years of service to freedom fighters, Punjappa
was entitled to five more years as qualifying

¶35

service, was rejected. Despite of reliance on this
Government Circular, the Chief Executive Officer

¶36

of Zilla Parishad opined that this Government

¶37

Circular is not applicable to the facts of

¶38

wp5620.99

¶39

¶40

Punjappa's case.

¶41

4.The question that arises in this case is,
whether the afore-stated Government Circular
dated 4th March 1991, is applicable to the facts
of Punjappa's case, and whether he is entitled for
five more years of qualifying service for
pensionery benefits.

¶42

5.Paragraph No.7 of the Government Circular
dated 4th March, 1991, reads as under:

¶43

" 7- lsokfuo‘Rrh osruklkBh vgZrkdkjh lsok ¢&

¶44

'kklu fu.kZ;] lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx dzekad

¶45

lh,u,l&1075@381@475@16&v] fnukad 6 lIVsacj 1976 vUo;s T;k 'kkldh; deZpk&;kauh jk"Vªh; pGoGhe/;s Hkkx ?ksryk vkf.k 'kklu ifji=d] iksfyfVdy vWa.M lfOgZlsl fMikVZesaV dzekad 2760@46] fnukad 20 ,fizy 1949 vUo;s ¼igk ifjf'k"V 2½ ns.;kr vkysY;k o;kph vV f'kfFky dj.;kP;k loyrhpk ykHk ?ksÅu ts fnukad 31 fMlsacj 1951 iwohZ 'kkldh; lsosr :tw >kys v'kk deZpk&;kauk lsokfuo‘Rrh osrukdfjrk ¼ijarq brj dks.kR;kgh fuo‘Rrh osrukdfjrk ukgh ½ R;kaP;k ,dq.k lsokdkGkpk 4 Fkk fgLlk] fdaok 'kkldh; lsosrhy fu;qDrhps osGh R;kaps o; 25 o"kZkis{kk tso<;k dkyko/khus tkLr gksrs rso<k dkyko/kh fdaok 5 o"kkZpk dkyko/kh] ;kiSdh tks lo Z kar deh dkyko/kh vlsy rso<k dkyko/kh lsok vgZrk fuo‘Rrh osrukdfjrk lsok dkyko/kh Eg.kqu tesl /kj.;kckcr ijokuxh vkgs+ + v'khp loyr

¶46

wp5620.99

¶47

¶48

fnukad 31 fMlsacj 1951 uarj lsosr izos'k dsysY;k O;Drhaukgh vuqKs; jkghy + "

¶49

6.In view of the fact that the status of
Punjappa being a freedom fighter is not in
contest, it appears to us that Paragraph No.7
quoted above, of the Government Circular, is fully
applicable to Punjappa's case. We also find that

¶50

the impugned order is incorrect, because
apparently the Chief Executive Officer did not
read this Government Circular, particularly
Paragraph No.7, in correct perspective. The Writ
Petition should therefore succeed with following
order:

¶51

7.The Writ Petition is allowed. The

¶52

Respondents shall provide the family pension to
the Petitioner from the date of death of Punjappa
Jangam. Rule made absolute, accordingly.

¶53

asb/SEP14

Shobha Punjappa Jangam v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shobha Punjappa Jangam v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baherul Nandram Sharma Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Jagdish Ratanlalji Mantri Vs Marathwada Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Ors.

Tukaram Namdeorao Zade Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Babulal Rama Thakre Vs Work Load Committee and Ors.

Prakash Kishanlal Murkya Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Prakash Kishanlal Murkya Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.