Allowed

Kalpana Haribhau Katore v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC15 Mar 2021WP/1994/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed this writ petition. It held that since the petitioner's appointment order was issued prior to 1st November 2005, she is governed by the Old Pension Scheme 1982 and not the Defined Contributory Pension Scheme (DCPS).

What did the court decide?

Petitioner is governed by the Old Pension Scheme, 1982 and not the DCPS. Writ petition allowed accordingly.

Kalpana Haribhau Katore Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

1 81-WP-1994-2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1994 OF 2017

¶4

Kalpana Haribhau Katore, Age 37 years, Occ. Service as Assistant Teacher, Primary School, Manwat Road,, Tal. Manwat, District Parbhani

¶5

...Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Finance Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32 2. State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Department of Education (Primary), Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32 3. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32

¶8

The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Parbhani ...Respondents

¶9

Mr S.B. Solanke, Advocate for Petitioner Mr S.K. Tambe, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 Mr Sachin Joshi, Advocate for Respondent No. 4

¶10

CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA AND SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.

¶11

DATE : 15^th MARCH, 2021

¶12

ORDER :

¶13

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

We have heard Mr Solanke, the learned counsel for the

¶15

2 81-WP-1994-2017

¶16

petitioner, Mr Joshi, the learned counsel for respondent No. 4 and the learned Assistant Government Pleader.

¶17

Mr Solanke, the learned counsel submits that as the petitioner is appointed prior to 01.11.2005, the petitioner would be governed by the old pension scheme of 1982.

¶18

Mr Joshi, the learned counsel submits that though the petitioner was appointed under the appointment order dated 26.10.2005, she was expected to join on 16.11.2005 as Shikshan Sevak. Her service from 15.11.2005 to 15.11.2008 will be termed as Shikshan Sevak.

¶19

In view of that, she would be governed by Defined Contributory Pension Scheme (DCPS) .

¶20

It is not disputed that the petitioner is appointed by the local bodies after conducting the selection process and the appointment order is issued to her on 26^th October, 2005. She was directed to join the duties on 16^th November, 2005, as during the interregnum there was Diwali Vacations and on the opening day of the Diwali Vacations, she was directed to join the duties.

¶21

Sub-rule 2 of Rule 2 of the Maharashtra civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 provides that these Rules shall not apply to the government servants, who are recruited on or after 1^st November, 2005. the emphasis is on the word “recruited”. Under the notification dated 31^st October, 2005, viz. Introducing the scheme of DCPS, it is specifically stated in clause 2 that the scheme will apply to those employees, who were appointed after

¶22

3 81-WP-1994-2017

¶23

1^st November, 2005. clause 4-A of the said scheme also specifically provides that the scheme will apply to those who are appointed after 1^st November, 2005.

¶24

In the present case, undisputedly the petitioner is appointed under the valid appointment order dated 26^th October, 2005. Sub-rule 2 of Rule 2 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, so also, clause 2 and Clause 4 of the DCPS scheme introduced under notification dated 31^st October, 2005 are unambiguous. When the provisions are unambiguous, literal interpretation is the rule.

¶25

The petitioner having been appointed prior to 1^st November, 2005, she would be governed by the Old Pension Scheme, 1982 and not by the DCPS scheme introduced under notification dated 31^st October, 2005.

¶26

In the light of above, the writ petition is allowed. The petitioner would be governed by the Old Pension Scheme, 1982 and not by the DCPS scheme. Rule accordingly made absolute in the above terms. No costs.

¶27

[ SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J. ] [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶28

mta

Kalpana Haribhau Katore v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalpana Haribhau Katore 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ratan Kashinath Naikode Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shri Saibaba Sansthan Shirdi through Its Chief Executive Officer Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shri Saibaba Sansthan Shirdi through Its Chief Executive Officer Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shrimant Bibhishan Gandhale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Sayaram Jganganna Narawad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Ankush Laxman Wadje and Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Others