Dismissed

Damodhar Gangadhar Thengde and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC3 Feb 2017RA/150/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad dismissed an application for review in a writ petition concerning the entitlement of an employee to time-scale promotional pay. The court held that the Government Resolution precluded salary benefits for the period of termination and absorption, limiting that period to pensionary count only, and noted that previous decisions did not apply.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; Application dismissed with no costs.

Damodhar Gangadhar Thengde and Another Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

rast37310-16

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.677/2017 IN RAST 37310/2016 IN WRIT PETITION NO.217/2015

¶5

DAMODHAR GANGADHAR THENGDE AND ANR VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

¶6

Mr.U.R.Aute h/f Talekar & Associates for applicants Mrs.M.A.Deshpande, Addl.Govt.Pleader for R-State

¶7

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA AND V.L.ACHLIYA,JJ.

¶8

DATE : 03/02/2017

¶9

PER COURT : -

¶10

Notice to respondents. Learned Additional Government Pleader waives service of notice for respondent.

¶11

2] Mr.Aute, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that services of the petitioner were regularised as per orders of the Apex Court. Whenever the services are regularised, the same relate back to the initial date of appointment. The learned counsel relies on judgment in the case of S.Sumnyan and others V/s Limi Niri and others reported in (2010) 6 S.C.C. 791 . The learned counsel further submits that even Clause-B of Government Resolution dated 22/7/1997 does not disentitle the petitioner from continuity in service.

¶12

rast37310-16

¶13

-2-

¶14

As such 12 years are required to be counted from the initial date of appointment. As such petitioner would be entitled for the benefits for time bound promotional pay scale on completion of 12 years service to be counted from initial date of appointment. The learned counsel submits that similarly situated persons are given said benefits. The petitioner is being discriminated.

¶15

3] The learned Additional Government Pleader submits that Clause-B of the Government Resolution dated 22/7/1997 specifically states that the petitioner would not be entitled for the wages during the period of his termination and absorption, however said period would only be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits. According to the learned Additional Government Pleader, in case of other persons, they had completed 12 years of continuous service.

¶16

4] We have considered the submissions. The Review cannot be considered as an Appeal in disguise. At the time when the Writ Petition was decided, the judgment of the Tribunal was assailed on the ground that the petitioner is entitled to time scale promotion which is granted to similarly situated employees and the Government Resolution dated 22/7/1997 issued on the basis of the directions in

¶17

Special Leave to Appeal No.11901/95 and 638/95 would not be applicable as the case of the petitioner was decided in the year 2004.

¶18

rast37310-16

¶19

-3-

¶20

5] It was observed that those who were granted time scale benefits were working continuously for a period of 12 years and Clause-B of the Government Resolution dated 22/7/1997 specifically dis entitled the petitioner for claiming any salary for the period from termination till their absorption and the said period is to be counted only for the purpose of pensionary benefits. Considering said aspect, we have dismissed the Writ Petition. No error apparent on the face of the application is found. In view of that, Review Application is dismissed. No costs.

¶21

(V.L.ACHLIYA,J.) (S.V.GANGAPURWALA.J)

¶22

umg/

Damodhar Gangadhar Thengde and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Damodhar Gangadhar Thengde and Another 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Netaji Subhanrao Etanbone Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Netaji Subhanrao Etanbone Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shafat Hussain Shafaquat Hussain Talib Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Damodhar Gangadhar Thengde and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Registrar, Vasantrao Naik Marathwada Krushi Vidyapith, Parbhani and Others Vs Abdul Sattar Abdul Razzak and Others

Registrar, Vasantrao Naik Marathwada Krushi Vidyapith, Parbhani and Others Vs Abdul Sattar Abdul Razzak and Others