Allowed

Sharda Rajendra Aajbe v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC12 Dec 2018WP/1304/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a writ petition regarding the refusal to sanction family pension to the wife of a deceased lecturer. It held that the Government Resolution applicable to her husband's tenure exempted him from NET/SET qualifications, directing the respondents to sanction the pension.

What did the court decide?

The impugned communication was quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to sanction the family pension within three days.

Sharda Rajendra Aajbe Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

21-WP-1304-16.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1304 OF 2016

¶4

Sharda Rajendra Aajbe ..PETITIONER VERSUS

¶5

State of Maharashtra and Others

¶6

..RESPONDENTS

¶7

Mr. S.V. Natu, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.P. Tiwari, A.G.P. for respondent – State.

¶8

Mr. Cedric Fernandes, Advocate h/f Mr. A.N. Kakade, Advocate for respondent no.3.

¶9

CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA AND R.G. AVACHAT, JJ. DATED : 12^th DECEMBER, 2018

¶10

ORDER :

¶11

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have refused to sanction and suspended the family pension to the petitioner. According to the learned Counsel, the husband of the petitioner was appointed as lecturer in Geography subject on 05^th August, 1996. His appointment was approved by Pune University under order dated 18^th December, 2010. The University Grants Commission has also granted approval as is clear from the communication of the University Grants Commission to Pune University. According to the learned Counsel,

¶12

1 / 3

¶13

21-WP-1304-16.odt

¶14

the stand of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that the petitioner cleared M.Phil. qualification only in the year 2009, and as such, is not entitled for the pension is erroneous.

¶15

The learned Counsel for Respondent No.3 submits that the husband of the petitioner was appointed after following due selection process on 05^th August, 1996 and his services are approved by the University Grants Commission, though the petitioner does not posses requisite qualification of NET/SET and posses only M.Phil.

¶16

We have considered the submissions of the parties. The petitioner is claiming the benefit of Government Resolution dated 27^th June, 2013. The husband of the petitioner was appointed on 05^th August, 1996 as a lecturer in Respondent No.3 – College. It is not disputed that the appointment of the petitioner is made after following the due selection process. The communication of the University Grants Commission dated 27^th March, 2010 to the Pune University refers that the University Grants Commission has granted exemption from NET examination as qualified candidate, at the relevant time, was not available. Government Resolution dated 27^th June, 2013 has been interpreted by this Court at its Principal Seat in Writ Petition No. 13166 of

¶17

2 / 3

¶18

21-WP-1304-16.odt

¶19

2017 under order dated 03^rd October, 2018. It has been held by this Court that as per the said Government Resolution, the State Government has exempted the lecturers appointed between 23^rd October, 1992 to 03^rd April, 2000 from possessing the NET/SET qualification. Appointment of the husband of the petitioner appears to have been approved even exemption has been granted by the University Grants Commission. The husband of the petitioner died on 18^th September, 2013. The said Government Resolution would apply to the husband of the petitioner. The date of death and/or retirement would not make any difference.

¶20

In light of the above, the impugned communication is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to sanction the family pension to the petitioner as per the rules, after verifying all other aspects of the matter within three months from today. Writ Petition is allowed and disposed of. No costs.

¶21

( R.G. AVACHAT, J. ) ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. )

¶22

SSD

¶23

3 / 3

Sharda Rajendra Aajbe v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharda Rajendra Aajbe 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

Atul Anilrao Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anothers

Kirankumar Uttamrao Metalwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Jeevan Vithalrao Hendre Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bhimrao Anandrao Kokule and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Prakash Dhannulal Kurliye Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Shaikh Mushtaque Ahmed Kasam Qureshi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another