Disposed

Shashkikant Digambarrao Badve v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC24 Feb 2015WP/2257/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought lifetime pension for deceased mother but failed to submit indemnity bond and guardianship affidavit. Court ordered Respondents to process pension papers within four months after Petitioner complies with outstanding requirements and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit outstanding documents; Respondents to process pension papers within four months; Writ petition disposed of.

Shashkikant Digambarrao Badve Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

23 wp.2257.13.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2257 OF 2013

¶5

SHASHKIKANT DIGAMBARRAO BADVE VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶7

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Devakate Anant R. AGP for Respondents: Mr.K.G.Patil. Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 : Mr. P.B.Patil.

¶8

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA and V. L. ACHLIYA, JJ. DATE : 24^th February, 2015.

¶9

PER COURT:

¶10

. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the mother of the Petitioner died. Life time pension is sought. The Petitioner has complied with all the formalities. However, the pension is not released.

¶11

2 Mr.Patil, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that Respondent Nos.2 and 3 were communicated by Respondent No.4 for submission of Form No.12 and indemnity bond in Form No.29, so also the affidavit of the guardianship of the Petitioner. The Petitioner submitted Form No.12, however, did not submit indemnity bond in Form No.29 and the affidavit of guardianship and insisted that the proposal be forwarded to Respondent No.4. The Respondent No.4 communicated the office of Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to submit non-earning certificate of the Petitioner. However, the Respondent No.4 had directed the office of Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to submit the documents mentioned in the letter dated 28^th June, 2013.

¶12

¶13

23 wp.2257.13.odt

¶14

3 It appears that Respondent No.4 had demanded some documents i.e. latest medical certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon about the disability as the earlier certificate is of the year 2007 and it is also communicated by Respondent No.4 that as per Rule 116(5)(v) such medical certificates are valid for a period of three years only. It appears that Form No.12 with identification document of guardianship is submitted.

¶15

4 It is also for the Petitioner to comply with the said requirements.

¶16

5 On compliance of the documents as detailed in the letter dated 28^th June, 2013 (Page No.78) by the Petitioner, the Respondent No.4 shall process the said pension papers and pass appropriate orders, expeditiously, preferably within four months from compliance by the Petitioner of the documents as detailed in the letter dated 28^th June, 2013.

¶17

6 Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶18

[ V. L. ACHLIYA, J. ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶19

ndm

Shashkikant Digambarrao Badve v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashkikant Digambarrao Badve 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balkrishna Govindrao Kulkarni Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Sandip Pralhad Wagh Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Chunnekhan Rajekhan Pathan Vs the Liquidator District Deputy Registrar Cooperative Society, Aurangabad and Another

Deepak Purushottam Kulkarni Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shri Sai Samarth Industrial Training Institute, Jalgaon Vs the Union of India and Others

Surajsingh Rajendrasingh Thakur and Another Vs Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad and Another