Dismissed

Pushpa Balasaheb Murkute v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC29 Mar 2016WP/1090/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad dismissed a writ petition seeking pension on compassionate grounds. The Court held that the widow cannot claim pension as the deceased employee never retired and the Administrative Tribunal had already considered the issue on merit in a prior order.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed with liberty to amend to challenge the order dated 9th November 2001 by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal.

Pushpa Balasaheb Murkute Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1 33-wp1090-16.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.1090 OF 2016

¶4

Smt. Pushpa w/o. Balasaheb Murkute..Petitioner

¶5

versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra
and ors.

¶7

..Respondents

¶8

--
Mr.AbhishekDeshpande,advocatei/b.

¶9

Mr.S.B.Sontakke, advocate for petitioner

¶10

Mr.V.S.Badakh, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3 -
State

¶11

CORAM : S.S. SHINDE AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : MARCH 29, 2016

¶12

PER COURT :

¶13

Heard learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and learned AGP for respondents –
State.

¶14

2]Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited

¶15

our attention to the prayer clauses in Original
Application No.499 of 2001 and submitted that

¶16

2 33-wp1090-16.odt

¶17

there was no prayer for grant of pension in the

¶18

said Original Application. He further submitted that said Original Application was filed seeking directions to the respondents to appoint the petitioner/applicant on compassionate ground in a Class-III or Class-IV post. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Original Application No.309 of 2012 filed by the petitioner praying therein for grant of pension, should not have been rejected on the ground that said claim was hit by principles of res-judicata since the claim was considered in Original Application No.499 of 2001.

¶19

3]Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submitted that while deciding Original Application
No.499 of 2001, the Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal travelled beyond the pleadings and

¶20

prayers made in the application and held that the
petitioner/applicant was not entitled for grant of

¶21

3 33-wp1090-16.odt

¶22

pension. He submitted that the petitioner may be
granted liberty to amend this petition so as to
take exception to the order dated 9th November,
2001 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal in Original Application No.499 of 2001.

¶23

4]Learned AGP relying on the reasons assigned by

¶24

the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in the
order dated 9th November, 2001, submitted that the
Tribunal has already held that the petitioner is
not entitled for grant of pension. He submitted
that the said order passed by the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal is a reasoned order and

¶25

the findings recorded in the said order remained
unchallenged. He therefore submitted that it is
not open for the petitioner to take exception to
the said order in the present petition. He submits

¶26

that the reasons given by the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal while rejecting M.A. No.95

¶27

4 33-wp1090-16.odt

¶28

of 2012 in Original Application (St.) No.309 of

¶29

2012 needs no interference by this Court.

¶30

5]We have given careful consideration to the
submissions advanced by learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned AGP for respondent – State.
With their able assistance, we have perused the
pleadings in the petition, annexures thereto and
in particular, the order dated 9th November, 2001
passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal
in Original Application No.499 of 2001. In the
said order, the Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal has observed, thus :-

¶31

“2.Admittedly the husband of the
applicant while in service, was convicted
for offence u/s. 85 of the Bombay
Prevention Act. The said conviction was
confirmed by the High Court. The employee
died during pendency of the Criminal
Appeal before High Court. The said
employee never retired from service.

¶32

5 33-wp1090-16.odt

¶33

Applicant being a widow of the said
employeeisclaimingpensionon
compassionate ground. No pension is
permissible/admissible for a person or
dependents of a person who never retired
from service or died in service. In fact,
the employee in the instant case was
liable for dismissal from service. The
question of granting pension does not
arise. Petition is meritless. Dismissed.”

¶34

6]Upon perusal of the observations/findings
recorded by the Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal, it is abundantly clear that the question

¶35

of grant of pension has gone into by the

¶36

Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal on merit and
it was held that, the petitioner was not entitled

¶37

for grant of pension. Admittedly, the findings
recorded by the Tribunal has attained finality in
as much as the petitioner has not taken exception
to the said order. In that view of the matter, we

¶38

are unable to persuade ourselves to grant any

¶39

6 33-wp1090-16.odt

¶40

relief in the present petition since the issue
raised in the petition is set at rest by the
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original
Application No.499 of 2001.

¶41

7]For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any
substance in the present Writ Petition. Hence,
the Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶42

[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.][S.S. SHINDE, J.]

¶43

kbp

Pushpa Balasaheb Murkute v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpa Balasaheb Murkute 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

Yuvraj Patilba Andhale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pramodini Prabhakar Parkhe and Anothers Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Balaji Hanumant Morale Vs State of Maharashtra and Others