Allowed

Mandakini Digambar Kulkarni v. the Record Signals Officer Thr Record Officer and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Apr 2018WP/5842/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition allowed the petitioner to obtain a certificate from the Record Signals Office confirming she was not receiving family pension from that office. The Court directed the office to issue the certificate within three months, enabling other respondents to process her claim for pension from a different office.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent No.1 to issue a certificate of non-entitlement within three months; directed other respondents to process the pension claim within six months thereafter.

Mandakini Digambar Kulkarni Vs the Record… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

(1) WP No.5842/2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 5842 OF 2013

¶4

Smt. Mandakini w/o Digambar Kulkarni. Petitioner.

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Record Signals Office & others. Respondents.

¶7

¶8

Mr. S.V. Mundhe, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M.M. Nerlikar, A.G.P. for the State. Mr. D.G. Nagode, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶9

¶10

CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE & SUNIL K. KOTWAL,JJ.

¶11

Dated : 20^th April, 2018.

¶12

ORDER :-

¶13

. Heard both sides. The petitioner has prayed for giving direction to respondent No.1 with whom the husband of the petitioner by name Digambar Kulkarni was working in the past. After leaving the service of respondent No.1, the husband of the petitioner had joined other services like Civil Services and from there also he retired. The petitioner wanted to get family pension in respect of the services rendered by the deceased in other Office, Civil Services i.e. respondent No.4 and for that she wanted a Certificate of respondent No.1 that respondent No.1 was not paying family pension to the petitioner. For that she had applied to respondent No.1.

¶14

(2) WP No.5842/2013

¶15

It appears that respondent No.1, under misconception, started inquiry to ascertain the entitlement of the petitioner to get family pension. She was not asking for family pension from respondent No.1 and she was only asking for the Certificate to the effect that she was not getting family pension from respondent No.1. In view of these circumstances, if respondent No.1 had not processed with the matter for family pension in favour of the petitioner, the respondent No.1 ought to have given Certificate to that effect. So, this Court hereby directs the respondent No.1 to issue Certificate to the petitioner if the respondent No.1 has not processed the matter for family pension in favour of the petitioner.

¶16

The other respondents are expected to proceed with the matter which include the ascertainment of entitlement of the petitioner to get family pension, after production of the Certificate which the petitioner may produce after getting it from respondent No.1.

¶17

The certificate needs to be issued by respondent No.1 within three months from the date of this order and thereafter the other respondents need to complete the process within six months thereafter.

¶18

In the above terms, the Petition is allowed and disposed of.

¶19

( SUNIL K. KOTWAL) ( T.V. NALAWADE) JUDGE JUDGE

¶20

vdd/

Mandakini Digambar Kulkarni v. the Record Signals Officer Thr Record Officer and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mandakini Digambar Kulkarni v. the Record Signals Officer Thr Record Officer and Ors.

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

Gulab Narayan Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dnyaneshwar Rambhau Surwase and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Venkat@Meghraj Ramrao Deokate and Ors.

Nilofar Begum Shaikh Moiz Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bapu Deola Chavan Vs Ujwal Uke and Another

The State of Maharashtra Vs Hamid Dadusab Bakriwale and Ors.