Allowed

Baban Ramchandra Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary (Energy), Industries, Energy and Labour Dept. and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Jul 2019WP/10282/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that since the respondent had already accepted the petitioner's superannuation and calculated pension and gratuity, the entitlement to leave encashment could not be denied based on the petitioner's open category category status or late submission of caste certificate. The petitioner was directed to be paid the due leave encashment amount within three months.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No. 2 directed to release the amount due towards the encashment of leave to the Petitioner within three months from today.

Baban Ramchandra Bhosale Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO. 10282 OF 2015

¶3

Baban Ramchandra Bhosale. ..Petitioner. Versus State of Maharashtra & Another. ..Respondents.

¶4

Mr. R. K. Mendadkar for the Petitioner. Mrs. M. P. Thakur, AGP for the Respondent-State. Ms. Savita A. Prabhune for Respondent No. 2.

¶5

Coram : RANJIT MORE & SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, JJ. Date : July 4, 2019 .

¶6

P. C. :

¶7

In furtherance of our order dated 20^th June 2019, the learned counsel for Respondent No.2 has placed before us the details of pensionary benefits due to the Petitioner on account of his superannuation with effect from 30^th June 2019. In effect, in the communication placed on record by the learned counsel it is stated that the Petitioner is held entitled for payment of pension and gratuity and the amount of provident fund has also been calculated. The gift cheque of Rs.5,000/- is already paid to the Petitioner. The objection is only in respect of the leave encashment of 300 days and medical leave of 93 days and the amount to be paid to the Petitioner towards this encashment. The learned counsel for the Respondent expressed that the

¶8

1 / 2

¶9

patilsr

¶10

Petitioner is not entitled for the said amount. We do not find merit in the said contention of the learned counsel for Respondent since the very case of the Petitioner is that he had entered into service as an open category candidate and at the fag end of his service, he was asked to submit the caste validity certificate. However he superannuated on 30^th March 2019 and since the Respondent has already accepted his superannuation and calculated his pension, gratuity as well as the amount of CPF, we fail to understand as to how the encashment of leave can be considered to be dependent on the manner of entry of the Petitioner into service, either as an open category candidate or a reserved category candidate. In such circumstances, we direct Respondent No.2 to release the amount due towards the encashment of leave to the Petitioner within the period of three months from today. With these directions, writ petition is disposed of.

¶11

[SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.]

¶12

[RANJIT MORE, J.]

¶13

2 / 2

¶14

patilsr

Baban Ramchandra Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary (Energy), Industries, Energy and Labour Dept. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baban Ramchandra Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary (Energy), Industries, Energy and Labour Dept. 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

Hussain Mohammed Shattaf @ Hussain Mehboob Khokhawala Vs Humaid Mohammed Humaid Mohammed Shattaf through Poa Madhukar Raviraj Wilson and Anr.

Hussain Mohammed Shattaf @ Hussain Mehboob Khokhawala and Anr. Vs Humaid Mohammed Humaid Mohammed Shattaf through Poa Madhukar Raviraj Wilson and Anr.

Rajkiran Jaywant Maskar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kirit Murji Shah and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shri. Sachin Dattatray Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra , through Principal Secretary and Ors.

Mr. Hariprasad Choksey Vs Manadal Adhikari Belapur Karyalaya and Anr.