Allowed

Gulam Mustafa Gulam Mehmood and Others v. the State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Department of Urban Development, Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC25 Aug 2021WP/3497/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The written petitioners challenged the denial of family pension. Relying on a communication from the respondent Municipal Council granting pension benefits, the court directed the payment of arrears from the date entitlement commenced in 2016.

What did the court decide?

Permit the writ petition, declare entitlement to family pension, and direct the respondent Municipal Council to pay arrears of family pension from 02.08.2016.

Gulam Mustafa Gulam Mehmood and Others Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

16-wp 3497-19-

¶2

1/3

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3497 OF 2019

¶5

PETITIONERS:- 1.Gulam Mustafa Gulam Mehmood, aged about 50 years,Occup Nil

¶6

2.Gulam Siddique Gulam Mehmood, aged about 42 years, Occup.Nil

¶7

3.Kamrus-Sahar Gulam Mehmood, aged about 40 years, Occup.Nil

¶8

All R/o Gadhiward, Near Jama Masjid,
Pusad, Dist.Yavtmal.

¶9

...VERSUS...

¶10

RESPONDENTS:- 1.The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Department of Urban Development, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32

¶11

2.The Regional Director, Municipal Administration, Amravati Region Amravati.

¶12

3. The Collector, Yavatmal, District Yavatmal.

¶13

4.The Municipal Council, Pusad- through its Chief Officer, Pusad, District Yavatmal.

¶14

Mohammad Ateeque Abdul Mushtaque counsel for the petitioners.
Mr.A.A. Madiwale, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Mr. Anand Deshpande, counsel for respondent No.4.

Kavita

16-wp 3497-19-

2/3

CORAM : SUNIL B.SHUKRE &
 ANIL S.KILOR, JJ.

¶19

 DATE : 25.08.2021.

¶20

O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per :Sunil B.Shukre, J.)

¶21

1. Heard.

¶22

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶23

3.Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 has
produced before us a photostat copy of the communication
addressed to petitioner No.3 by Chief Officer, Municipal Council,
Pusad. The communication is of the date of 23.08.2021. It is taken
on record and marked ‘A’ for the purpose of identification. By the
document ‘A’, respondent No.4 has allowed the application of the
petitioners for grant of pensionary benefits to them as per the
rules, after the death of their father in 1992 and demise of their
mother in the year 2016. The communication states that upon
allowing of the application of the petitioners, the petitioner No.3,
being the youngest of all the petitioners, would be given family

¶24

Kavita

¶25

16-wp 3497-193/3

¶26

pension. However, the communication does not speak anything
about the payment of arrears. Since, the petitioners have been
found to be entitled to receive family pension as per rules, the
availability of benefits of the family pension would be from the
date on which the entitlement of the petitioners commenced. This
date was of 02.08.2016. Therefore, the arrears which have become
due and payable to the petitioner No.3 on behalf of all the
petitioners would also have to be paid by the Municipal Council,
Pusad .

¶27

4. In the result, we allow this Writ Petition in terms of
the communication, dated 23.08.2021- (document A) and also
direct the respondent No.4 to make the payment of arrears of
family pension from 02.08.2016 till the date from which the
family pension has commenced to be paid to the petitioner No.3.

¶28

Rule accordingly. No costs.

¶29

 (ANIL S. KILOR,J) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE,J)

¶30

Kavita

Gulam Mustafa Gulam Mehmood and Others v. the State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Department of Urban Development, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulam Mustafa Gulam Mehmood and Others v. the State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Department of Urban Development, Mumbai and Others

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

Mrs. Chitra W/O Jagdish Mehar and Others Vs Union of India, through Its Secretary, (Idssa Scheme) Hrd Ministry, New Delhi and Others

Ms. Archana Wamanrao Borkar (Mrs. Archana Prashant Shingne) and Another Vs Union of India, through Secretary (Idssa Scheme), Hrd Ministry, New Delhi and Others

Chetan Mohanrao Dhapodkar and Others Vs Union of India Thr. Secretary (Iedss Scheme), Hrd Ministry, New Delhi and Others

Shri Samarth Shkshan Sanstha, through Secretary, Swapnil Vasantrao Dontulwar and Anothe Vs the State of Maha. Thr. Secretary, Department of Higher and Technical Education, Mumbai and Others

Chanda Shikshan Mandal Thr. President, Ashok Singh Thakur Vs Assistant Charity Commissioner, Chandrapur and Another

Vinodkumar Rameshchand Gupta and Another Vs Union of India, Thr. Secy., Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Control, New Delhi and Ors.