Allowed

Ramrao S/O Mansingh Pawar v. Dy. Director (Education), Nagpur, Region Nagpur, Nagpur and Others

Bombay HC22 Sept 2022WP/3584/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petition, holding that without a departmental enquiry for grave misconduct, stopping the pension was illegal. The school authorities must comply with deficiencies noted by the Education Officer without needing a copy of the proposal or recovering alleged post-retirement losses.

What did the court decide?

Order to process pension and grant arrears; quash communications dated 17/6/2019 and 1/9/2019; direct respondents to comply with deficiencies within eight weeks.

Ramrao S/O Mansingh Pawar Vs Dy. Director… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

wp3584.2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.3584/2022

¶5

Ramrao S/o Mansingh Pawar, aged about 60 Yrs., Occ. Nil, R/o Mahsul Colony, Ward No.1, Selu Road, Malegaon, Tq. Malegaon, Dist. Washim. ... Petitioner

¶6

Versus -

¶7

Deputy Director (Education), Nagpur Region Nagpur, Bal Bharti Building, Near Getwell Hospital, Dhantoli, Nagpur, Tq. and Dist. Nagpur.

¶8

Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur Zilla Parishad Compound, Civil Lines, Nagpur.

¶9

Panchshil Vidyalankar Shikshan Sanstha, Washim (Akola), (Regd. No.236F327) through its Secretary, Off/at Rekhatai Rashtriya Vidyalaya, Akola Naka, Washim, Tq. and Dist. Washim.

¶10

Babu Gunwantrao Rashtriya Vidyalaya, Jamgadh through its Headmaster at s

¶11

Jamgadh, Tq. Katol, Dist. Nagpur. ... Respondent

¶12

wp3584.2022

¶13

¶14

Mr. Jemini B. Kasat, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. K.L Dharmadhikari, Additional Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶15

Mr. V.K. Paliwal, Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 and 4.

¶16

CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND G.A. SANAP, JJ. DATE : 22.9.2022

¶17

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Sunil B. Shukre, J.)

¶18

Heard. Rule . Rule made returnable forthwith.

¶19

Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties.

¶20

It is an admitted fact that there is no departmental

¶21

enquiry, as contemplated under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, held against the petitioner. That means there is no question of the petitioner having been found to be guilty of grave misconduct

¶22

or negligence. It would then follow that the case of the petitioner

¶23

3 wp3584.2022

¶24

would not be covered by any of the clauses of rule 27 of the Maharashtra Civil Services Pension Rules. Resultantly, there is no provision of law which would enable respondent Nos.3 and 4 from stopping payment of pension to the petitioner. In fact, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 graciously concedes that this is a case wherein the petitioner should get the pension. He on the other hand, supports the demand made by the petitioner by stating that for that purpose, respondent Nos.3 and 4 as part of the management must have a copy of the proposal

¶25

and must know whether pension proposal has been correctly prepared by the petitioner or not.

¶26

We are of the view that the correctness or otherwise of

¶27

the pension proposal has already been thoroughly examined by the Education Officer and his enquiry has led to discovery of few deficiencies which are detailed in communication dated 14.1.2022 sent to respondent Nos.3 and 4. All that which has remained to be done in this case for respondent Nos.3 and 4 is to

¶28

4 wp3584.2022

¶29

remove the deficiencies indicated by the Education Officer in communication dated 14.1.2022 and which must be done by respondent Nos.3 and 4. For removal of these deficiencies, respondent Nos.3 and 4 would not require copy of the proposal nor would require to reexamine the proposal with a view to find out if there are any further deficiencies in the proposal as if respondent Nos.3 and 4 are the appellate authorities of the Education Officer.

¶30

As regards the issue of recovery of alleged loss from the petitioner and its demand raised upon the petitioner by respondent Nos.3 and 4, we find that even such an attempt cannot be made by respondent Nos.3 and 4 after retirement of the petitioner. Therefore, the communications made in this regard cannot sustain themselves in the scrutiny of law.

¶31

In the result, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses A, B and C which read as follows:-

¶32

wp3584.2022

¶33

¶34

“A. Order to process the pension case pending with the respondent no.2 Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur forthwith and grant regular pension to the petitioner and the arrears of pension along with interest.

¶35

B. Quash and set aside the communications dated 17/6/2019 at Annexure-E and dated 1/9/2019 at Annexure-F issued by the respondent no.3 Panchshil Vidyalankar Shikshan Sanstha, Washim (Akola).

¶36

C. Direct the respondent no.3 Panchshil Vidyalankar Shikshan Sanstha, Washim (Akola) and the Headmaster of the respondent no.4 Babu Gunwantrao Rashtriya Vidyalaya to comply with the deficiencies in the pension case of the petitioner pending with the respondent no.2 Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Nagpur forthwith.”

¶37

Compliance with the above directions be made within

¶38

eight weeks from the date of the order.

¶39

Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.

¶40

( G.A. SANAP , J.) ( SUNIL B. SHUKRE , J.)

¶41

Signed By:NILESH VILASRAO Tambaskar. TAMBASKAR

¶42

Private Secretary Date:26.09.2022 11:08

Ramrao S/O Mansingh Pawar v. Dy. Director (Education), Nagpur, Region Nagpur, Nagpur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramrao S/O Mansingh Pawar v. Dy. Director (Education), Nagpur, Region Nagpur, Nagpur 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

Pritam Dayaram Sidam Vs Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee Thr. Joint Commissioner and Others

Gajendra S/O Dilip Chacharkar Vs the Union of India, Thr. Secretary, Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and Others

A.N. Radha Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Higher Technical Education, Mumbai and Others

The Gadchiroli Dist Judicial Employees Asso (Gr. C) Thru Its Secty. Vs the Principal Dist and Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli and 2 Ors.

Dr. Prakash Manikrao Tayde and Others Vs State of Maha. Thr. Principal Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Dept. Mumbai and Others

Mahadeo S/O Sadashiv Nannaware and Another Vs Western Coalfields Ltd., Nagpur through Hairman Cum Managing Director and Another