In a PIL regarding pension denial to former MHADA employees who received CPF dues, the Division Bench dismissed the petition. The petitioners chose not to challenge the lower court's decision, leading to the termination of the instant proceedings by dismissal.
The petition was dismissed by terminating the proceedings.
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.
(10)-PIL-184-09.doc .
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.184 OF 2009
Shri. Vasant S. Maneck ..Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and another ..Respondents
Mr. Sagar Joshi I/by Mr. S. M. Oak – Amicus Curiae. Mr. M. M. Pabale, AGP for Respondent No.1 – State. Mr. Piyush Pande I/by Ms. Neha Bhide, Advocate for Respondent No.2 – MHADA.
CORAM : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, C.J. & SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.
DATE : 19th AUGUST, 2019
P.C.
1] Letter Petition was registered as Suo-moto Petition. The writer of the letter informed that he joined Maharashtra Housing Board (now MHADA) on 22.10.1951 as a Junior Clerk and superannuated from service on 31.01.1983 as First Clerk (Head Clerk). Very innocently he raised the grievance that he was not paid pension.
2] Suffice it to state that the writer of the letter was a member of the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme and on superannuation was paid the amount lying to his credit in the CPF. The issue raised in the letter appears to be premised on the fact that employees of BGP. 1 o f 3
(10)-PIL-184-09.doc .
MHADA who had superannuated from service and were paid dues lying to the credit in the CPF account made a representation to MHADA on 28.10.1980 praying that they should be paid pension. On 18.12.1982 vide Resolution No.602, MHADA agreed in principle. On 31.10.1983 the State Government granted in principle approval but on the condition that Maharashtra Civil Services Rules should be made applicable to the employees of MHADA and secondly the financial burden should be borne by MHADA. MHADA passed the necessary resolution and informed the State Government of the same on 16.03.1991, however, final decision was not taken by the State Government.
3] Writ Petition No.2353 of 1993 was filed by some employees of MHADA at the Nagpur Bench of this Court which was disposed of with a direction to the State Government to take a final decision and if it was to pay pension, terms thereof be framed. The State Government took a decision not to sanction the pension scheme.
4] This led to a batch of Writ Petitions being filed in this Court; lead matter being Writ Petition No.346 of 2013 MHADA . Sevanivrutta Karmachari Seva Sangh Vs. Vice President, MHADA Noting aforesaid facts, the Division Bench dismissed the batch of Petitions vide it's order dated 19th March 2014. The reason is obvious. The employees who were governed by the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme received the amounts lying to the credit of the fund in which each month government contribution was credited.
BGP. 2 o f 3
(10)-PIL-184-09.doc .
5] Thus, we terminate proceedings in the instant Petition by dismissing the same.
SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J CHIEF JUSTICE
BGP. 3 o f 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to pension after superannuation given his membership in the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme.
Whether to set aside the Division Bench order in W.P. No. 346 of 2013 refusing the pension petition.
Shri. Vasant S. Maneck
State of Maharashtra
MHADA
Pradeep Nandrajog
Bharati Dangre
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
