Dismissed

Arun Rajdhar Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC5 May 2014WP/615/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, granted a direction to a school institution to issue a 'No Objection' certificate to a retired Head Master so he could claim pensionary benefits, preventing the institution from using pending record handover as a ground for refusal.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondents to issue 'No Objection' certificate within four weeks; pending civil application disposed of.

Arun Rajdhar Patil Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

wp615.14

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 615 OF 2014

¶5

Arun s/o Rajdhar Patil .. PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others .. RESPONDENTS

¶7

Mr. A. V. Hon, advocate for petitioner. Mr. K. G. Patil, AGP for the State.

¶8

Mr. M. S. Deshmukh, advocate for respondent no. 3.

¶9

=====

¶10

CORAM : R.M. BORDE & A. M. BADAR, JJ. DATE : 5th MAY, 2014.

¶11

PER COURT :

¶12

Petitioner is praying for issuance of direction to respondent no. 4 –

¶13

institution to issue ‘No Objection’ certificate with a view to enable him to claim retiral benefits. It has not been disputed that petitioner was serving as Head Master with respondent no. 4 and was holding charge since 11.02.2011 to 30.06.2012. Petitioner, after his retirement, tendered necessary proposal for releasing pensionary benefits, however, Education Department refused to sanction the dues admissible to petitioner on

¶14

account of his failure to produce ‘No Objection’ certificate from respondent

no. 4.

wp615.14

It is the contention of respondent no. 4 – institution that petitioner has failed to handover original record which remained in his possession

¶19

since the date he assumed charge of the post of Head Master i.e. 11.02.2011. It is also contended that although petitioner assured to the Education Officer to handover record, he has not honoured his assurance. According to petitioner, the record has already been submitted to the present Head Master of the school and that he has complied with the assurance.

¶20

In the facts and circumstances of the case, even assuming the contention of respondent no. 4 to be correct, the institution cannot be permitted to withhold ‘No Objection’ certificate and thereby putting the petitioner to disadvantageous position in claiming pensionary benefits. Respondent no. 4 is as such directed to issue ‘No Objection’ certificate as requested by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today. If respondent no. 4 is of the view that petitioner has not handed over part of the record, it would be open for respondent no. 4 to take appropriate

¶21

measures in accordance with law.

¶22

With directions as above, writ petition stands disposed of.

¶23

wp615.14

¶24

¶25

Pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands

¶26

disposed of.

¶27

( A. M. BADAR ) ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE JUDGE dyb

Arun Rajdhar Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Rajdhar Patil 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Premsing Gabru Chavan Vs the Union of India and Others

Maltibai Keshavrao Deolgaonkar Deceased Lrs Vs Tukaram ....

Mohammad Faruk Sarfoddin Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Chennari Network Infrastructure Limited Vs the Aurangabad Municipal Corporation and Others

Dhondiram Maroti Dumale and Othrs Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ashok Murlidhar Gore and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others