The High Court disposed of writ petitions seeking pensionary benefits for petitioners who were later regularized from temporary posts. The court issued orders based on specific Government Resolution conditions attached to their regularization.
Writ petitions disposed of; no costs awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 wp 7991.16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 7991 OF 2016
Gajrabai W/o Sonba Andhare .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 7992 OF 2016
Nagnath Govind Biradar .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri Anand V. Indrale Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner in both matters.
Shri P. S. Patil, Addl. G. P. for the Respondent No. 1 in both matters.
Shri M. N. Navandar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in both matters.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND S. M. GAVHANE, JJ.
Closed for Orders : 06.12.2017 Order Pronounced on : 19.12.2017
ORDER :
. The petitioners seek directions against respondents to grant pensionary benefits to petitioners and other admissible benefits by considering half service rendered by them on temporary basis, in addition to the service rendered by them on
2 wp 7991.16
permanent basis.
3 wp 7991.16
Resolution dated 16.11.2015. The respondents appointed the daily rated labourers and skilled labourers for temporary and seasonal work. The petitioner in W. P. No. 7991 of 2016 was engaged as labourer on daily wages from 16.05.1978 and petitioner in W. P. No. 7992 of 2016 was engaged as a skilled labourer in the year 1985. On 09.11.2000, the petitioners were retrenched as per Sec. 25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The retrenchment compensation was also paid to petitioners. The petitioners from the retrenched date i. e. 01.04.2001 to 01.05.2005 and 01.04.2001 to 30.04.2006 respectively were not on duty with the university. The petitioner in W. P. No. 7991 of 2016 was re-engaged as a daily paid labourer from 02.05.2005 and the petitioner in W. P. No. 7992 of 2016 was re-engaged from 01.05.2006. The petitioners were not appointed on any sanctioned vacant post. The petitioner in W. P. No. 7991 of 2016 was reengaged on daily wages as labourer from 02.05.2005 to 30.11.2015 and petitioner in W. P. No. 7992 of 2016 was reengaged on daily wages as labourer from 01.05.2006 to 30.11.2015. The re-engagement was by giving technical gap after completion of every three or six months. The Government of Maharashtra took a policy decision to make permanent or regularize the daily wages workers, skilled or semi skilled employees under G. R. dated 24.07.2015 and 16.11.2015 with certain terms and conditions. As per G. R. dated 16.11.2015, the University has regularized 265 daily paid labourers. The petitioners were also made permanent or regularized under
4 wp 7991.16
orders dated 08.12.2015 and 21.12.2015 respectively as per the terms and conditions enumerated in said orders. The petitioner in W. P. No. 7991 of 2016 retired on attaining age of 60 years and the petitioner in W. P. No. 7992 of 2016 has retired on attaining age of 58 years. The petitioners are not entitled for the benefits of pension, gratuity and G. P. F. As per G. R. dated 01.11.2005 new defined contributory pension scheme is invoke. The petitioners had completed only seven months on permanent post.
Gurumail Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others reported in AIR 1993 SC 1388 .5 wp 7991.16
Rs. 10,530/- vide cheque No. 603895 and the petitioner in W. P. No. 7992 of 2016 was paid retrenchment compensation of Rs. 18,720/- vide cheque No. 604007 dated 21.03.2001. It further appears that, subsequently, the petitioners were again engaged as daily wage labourers from 01.05.2005 and 02.05.2006. Thereafter, as per policy decision of the State under G. R. dated 24.07.2015, the petitioners were regularized under university orders dated 08.12.2015 and 21.12.2015.
6 wp 7991.16
temporary. The petitioners had already received retrenchment compensation.
7 wp 7991.16
Rules, 1982 and the Maharashtra Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules 1984 will not apply. The permanent appointment orders of the petitioners dated 08.12.2015 and 21.12.2015 accepted by petitioners also specifically lays down the condition that the petitioners would be governed by the Defined Contributory Pension Scheme as per G. R. dated 31.12.2015 and the provisions of the M. C. S. (Pension) Rules would not be applicable.
[S. M. GAVHANE, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] bsb/Nov. 17
2 issues framed by the court
Whether services rendered by petitioners on daily wages prior to retrenchment and regularization can be counted for pension benefits under Mah. Civil Services (Pension) Rules.
Whether the petitioners are eligible to claim pensionary benefits under Rule 57 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules given the duration of their service.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gurumail Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and othersReferred¶23
Gurumail Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others reported in AIR 1993 SC 1388 · Who else cites this
Gajrabai W/o Sonba Andhare
Nagnath Govind Biradar
The State of Maharashtra
S. V. Gangapurwala
S. M. Gavhane
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court