Allowed

Shrirang Laxman Shinde v. the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC6 Sept 2018WP/9818/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking pension for a retired University of Pune employee. Despite an age dispute, the court noted that previous Division Benches rejected such objections for similarly situated employees, directing payment with interest.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner entitled to arrears of pension with interest at 6% per annum from date of retirement till payment.

Shrirang Laxman Shinde Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

(55) WP 9818-16.doc

¶2

Amk

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 9818 OF 2016

¶5

Shrirang Laxman Shinde .. Petitioner Vs.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents

¶7

Mr. Abhishek Deshpande a/w. Mr. Mahesh K. Chandanshiv for the Petitioner.

¶8

Mr. Rajendra Anbhule for the Respondent No.4. Mr. B. V. Samant, AGP for the State.

¶9

CORAM : R. M. SAVANT &

¶10

K. K. SONAWANE, JJ. DATE : 6 th SEPTEMBER, 2018.

¶11

P. C.

¶12

At the outset, learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks leave to

¶13

amend the Petition so as to correct the number of the prayer clauses.

¶14

Leave granted.

¶15

Amendment to be carried out forthwith.

¶16

The above Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction that

¶17

the Petitioner abovenamed be granted pension.

¶18

There is no dispute about the fact that the Petitioner was in the

¶19

1/4

¶20

(55) WP 9818-16.doc

¶21

employment of University of Pune in a non-teaching post till the date of retirement and as such has put in more than 20 years of service. Hence, there can be no dispute about the fact that the Petitioner has the qualifying service to entitle him to the grant of pension.

¶22

On behalf of the Respondents, Affidavit has been filed by one Dr. Vijay Pandurang Narkhede and the grant of pension to the Petitioner is opposed on the ground that the Petitioner was over-aged at the time of his initial appointment and therefore the appointment falls foul of the Government Resolution dated 28.01.1986 which fixed the upper age limit insofar as the non-teaching posts are concerned. The issue as to whether the fact of the Petitioner being over-aged at the time of his initial appointment so as to disentitle him to pension after putting in long years of service in University is concerned, the same is no more res-integra and is covered by various Judgments/orders passed by the Division Benches of this Court. The same can be gainfully summarized hereinbelow:

¶23

(i) Order dated 10^th January, 2012 in Writ Petition No.

¶24

6523 of 2011 in the matter of Madhukar Shankarrao Pawar & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶25

(ii) Order dated 17^th December, 2013 in Writ Petition No. 6168 of 2012 in the matter of Dilip Krushna Tadakhe & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶26

2/4

¶27

(55) WP 9818-16.doc

¶28

(iii) Order dated 2^nd May, 2017 in Writ Petition No. 8830 of 2015 in the matter of Ashok Haribhau Sawant Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶29

(iv) Order dated 4^th September, 2018 passed in Writ Petition No. 5068 of 2018 in the matter of Sulbha Shankar Kurne Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. and companion Writ Petition Nos. 5322 of 2018 and 5323 of 2018.

¶30

Hence, the objection as regards the Petitioner being over aged at the time of recruitment has been rejected by the Division Benches of this Court, therefore, the said issue has been put to rest. The orders passed by the Division Benches in the above Writ Petitions are in respect of employees who are similarly situated as the Petitioner abovenamed as can be seen from the proposal sent by the University to the Director of Higher Education wherein the names of all the Petitioners are appearing along with Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 8830 of 2015 i.e. Ashok Haribhau Sawant.

¶31

In that view of the matter, the above Writ Petition is required to be allowed and is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (b). Since the Petitioner has been wrongly denied the benefit of pension, he would be entitled to the arrears of pension with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of his retirement till payment. We direct that

¶32

3/4

¶33

(55) WP 9818-16.doc

¶34

the payment to be made on or before 31.12.2018, failing which the

¶35

rate of interest would increase to 12% per annum.

¶36

The Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent and to accordingly stand disposed of.

¶37

[K. K. SONAWANE, J.]

¶38

[R. M. SAVANT, J.]

¶39

Digitally signed by Arjun Arjun Machhindra Machhindra Kadam Kadam Date: 2018.09.11 17:42:50 +0530

¶40

4/4

Shrirang Laxman Shinde v. the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shrirang Laxman Shinde v. the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Vilas Dattu Jhaveri Vs Maharashtra State Electricicy Distribution Co. Ltd. and Anr.

Smt. Krushna Satyavan Chandaliya Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Ors.

Mr. Ganesh Kumar Yadav and Anr. Vs Union of India through Its Secretary and Ors.

R.S. Chalke Vs Board of Trustees of Port of Mumbai and Anr.

M/S. A.B. Construction Solapur, through Its Proprietor Vs the Union of India through the Minister of Labour and Employment and Ors.

Idea Cellular Limited and Anr. Vs Pune Municipa Corporation and Anr.