Dismissed

Pandurang Rukhmaji Koturwar v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC2 Dec 2016WP/1917/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition concerning pension claims, the petitioner requested recognition of pre-State Reorganization service rendered in the erstwhile Hyderabad State. The High Court dismissed the petition noting a lack of specific details regarding the applicable conditions of service during that period, which prevented a decision in the petitioner's favour.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs.

Pandurang Rukhmaji Koturwar Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1021.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1917 OF 2005

¶4

Pandurang s/o Rukhamji Koturwar
Aged 76 years, Occu: Pensioner,
R/o c/o Smt. Sudha Prakash
Darbastwar, Plot No.19, “Deep”
Sangram Nagar, Near Renukamata
Mandir, Beed Bye-pass,
Aurangabad.

¶5

… Petitioner

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, School Education Department Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 32

¶8

2. The Director of Education, M. S. Pune.

¶9

3. The Deputy Director of Education, … Aurngabad.

¶10

4. The Education Officer(Primary) Zilla Parishad, Nanded.

¶11

5. Nutan Education Society, Through tis Secretary, Shri Shriniwas @ Bapusaheb gorthekar- Deshmukh, Umri Dist. Nanded.

¶12

6. The State of Andhra Pradesh Through its Principal Secretary, Department of General Administration, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

Mr. U. R. Awate, i/by Talekar and Associates, Advocate
for the petitioner

¶14

Mrs.S. S. Raut, AGP for the Respondents 1 to 3 -State ,
Mr. s. S. Choudhari, Advocate for respondent No.5.

¶15

1/5

¶16

1021.odt

¶17

CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA &

¶18

K. L. WADANE, JJ.

¶19

 DATE:
2nd December, 2016

¶20

JUDGMENT :

¶21

1. Mr. Awate, the learned counsel for the

¶22

petitioner states that the petitioner was appointed
initially on 11.11.1952 in Nutan Vidyalaya High School,
Umri, run by the Aryan Education Society, Hyderabad.
Under order dated 30.06.1956, the petitioner came to be

¶23

transferred to Keshav Memorial High School,
Narayanguda, Hyderabad. Thereafter the petitioner was
further transferred from the said school to Shamlal

¶24

Memorial High School, Udgir under order dated

¶25

01.07.1957 and the petitioner stood retired on
attaining the age of superannuation on 01.11.1986.
Pension papers of the petitioner were forwarded in

¶26

1989. The pension is sanctioned in favour of the
petitioner. The learned counsel submits that while
considering the claim of pension, the services rendered
by the petitioner from the year 1952 till June, 1957
are not considered. According to the learned counsel,
in view of the provisions of the State Reorganization
Act, more particularly Sub Section 7 of Section 115 of
the said Act, services rendered by the petitioner in

¶27

2/5

¶28

1021.odt

¶29

the erstwhile Hyderabad State shall have to be counted
for the purpose of pension. According to the leaned
counsel, conditions of service cannot be altered upon
the State Reorganization. Conditions of service
would remain the same. The learned counsel relies on
the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M. D.
Shukla Vs. State of Gujrat, reported in 1970 (1) SCC
419 and the judgment of the Division Bench of this
Court in case of Zilo Zo and others Vs. State of Goa
and others, reported in 2012 (2) Bom.C.R. 450 so also
the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Writ
Petition No.8226/2006 dated 9th June, 2014.

¶30

2. Mr. Choudhari, the learned counsel for the

¶31

respondent No.5 Institution states that the factum of
the petitioner having rendered services from 1952 is
not disputed, however, the claim of the petitioner is
belated. In 1989, pension was sanctioned and the
petition is filed in the year 2005.

¶32

3. Mr. Raut, the learned AGP submits that the

¶33

petitioner has rendered services with the respondent
Institution in this State since 1957. As such, the
services rendered in other State could not have been
considered for the purpose of pension. According to

¶34

3/5

¶35

1021.odt

¶36

the learned AGP, even the Government resolution dated
14.02.1986 would not come to the aid of the petitioner.
Services rendered by the petitioner from 11.11.1952 to
31.08.1957 in the erstwhile State of Hyderabad is
rightly not considered. Further, there is enormous
delay in filing the writ petition.

¶37

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

¶38

5. The details of the conditions of services are

¶39

not before this Court. It is not disputed that the
petitioner was appointed on 11.11.1952 as an Assistant
Teacher at Umri in the erstwhile State of Hyderabad.
Thereafter on 30th June, 1956 he was transferred to
Keshav Memorial High School, Narayanguda, Hyderabad
and again to Shamlal Memorial High School, Udgir on
01.07.1957. What were the conditions of service when

¶40

the petitioner was serving with erstwhile State of
Hyderabad are not before this Court. Whether the said
service in the State of Hyderabad was pensionable

¶41

service or not is also not before this Court. In
absence of any such details, it would not be possible

¶42

to conclude in favour of the petitioner. It is true
that the conditions of service cannot be altered upon

¶43

4/5

¶44

1021.odt

¶45

Reorganization of the State and that the area where the
petitioner was working i.e. Umri was subsequently
formed part of the State of Maharashtra. However, in
absence of any conditions of service governing the
petitioner during his service period in the erstwhile
State of Hyderabad, being on record, it would not be
possible for us to decide in favour of the petitioner.

¶46

In light of that, the writ petition is dismissed. Rule
discharged. No costs.

¶47

JPC

¶48

5/5

Pandurang Rukhmaji Koturwar v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pandurang Rukhmaji Koturwar v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Gangaram Waghmare Vs the Director of Archives Govt. of Mah Elphinstone College

Sumanbai Bhaurao Shinde Vs Veeraswami Nandaiyya Nagula

Sadashiv Tukaram Sanap Vs S P Jaiswal and Others

Sunil Digambar Borole Vs Dhule Zilla Parishad Dhule and Ors.

Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Shikshan Sanstha Karmad, Tq Parola, Vs State of Mah and Ors.

Machindra Rangnath Jadhav Vs Kojagiri Machindra Jadhav