Dismissed

Rajvilas Raosaheb More v. the State of Maharashtra Thru Dy. Secretary, Home Dept. and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Jul 2022WP/8141/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay dismissed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of a petition for pensionary benefits. The court held that ad-hoc service could not be counted towards qualifying service under the rules, distinguishing the cited Supreme Court order which involved different facts regarding service dates.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no costs awarded to the petitioner.

Rajvilas Raosaheb More Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

5-aswp8141-2022

¶2

AGK

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 8141 OF 2022

¶5

Rajvilas Raosaheb More …Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra through Dy. Secretary, Home Department & Ors. …Respondents

¶6

Mr. Nikhil N. Pawar for the petitioner. Mr. B. V. Samant, AGP for the State.

¶7

CORAM: DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ & M. S. KARNIK, J.

¶8

DATE: JULY 13, 2022

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

1. The petitioner takes exception to the order dated 3^rd August 2015 of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (hereafter ‘the Tribunal’, for short), whereby his original application (O.A. No. 920 of 2012) was dismissed.

¶11

2. This writ petition has been instituted on 25^th April 2022, i.e., seven (7) years after the Tribunal dismissed the original application. Explanation for the delayed approach to this Court has been furnished in paragraph 10 of the writ petition. Having accepted the explanation, we proceeded to hear the parties on the merits of the petitioner’s claim.

¶12

3. The petitioner was appointed on purely ad-hoc basis as a

¶13

¶14

5-aswp8141-2022

¶15

Laboratory Assistant by the respondent no.3 on 21^st December 1987. Such appointment was for a period of three (3) months. He was further appointed on ad-hoc basis for three months each with breaks of a few days in between 29^th September 1989 and 17^th September 1992. The petitioner admittedly was not in service from 18^th September 1992 onwards. He was again given ad-hoc appointments with technical breaks for short periods. Ultimately, the service of the petitioner was regularized by an order dated 11^th September 2000. He was appointed as Senior Laboratory Assistant from 18^th September 2000 on probation for a period of two (2) years. Such order made it clear that the petitioner’s seniority would be counted from 8^th March 1999 in terms of the Government Resolution of the same date and that the breaks in service from 8^th March 1999 to 10^th July 2000 were condoned for seniority purposes. The petitioner finally retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31^st August 2008.

¶16

4. Claiming pensionary benefits, the petitioner approached the Tribunal. As noted above, he failed there. The Tribunal recorded a finding that the petitioner having not put in qualifying service of twenty (20) years, which is the precondition for entitlement to pensionary benefits, he was not entitled to any relief. According to the petitioner, the period of service rendered by him from 31^st December 1987 ought to have been counted. The Tribunal did not accept such a contention and rightly so. The period of minimum qualifying service must be on a substantive basis and any service rendered on ad-hoc basis cannot be counted, unless the rules so permit. It has not been shown to us that the rules permit

¶17

¶18

5-aswp8141-2022

¶19

considering ad-hoc service.

¶20

5. Mr. Pawar, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance on an order dated 18^th February 2022 passed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 1109 of 2022 ( The State of Gujarat & Ors v Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel ) to contend that the Supreme Court had not interfered with the order under challenge directing grant of pensionary benefits to the respondent who had retired after rendering more than thirty (30) years of service on ad-hoc basis.

¶21

6. The decision in Talsibhai Patel (supra) was not rendered on a civil appeal and, therefore, no law can be said to have been laid down therein which would operate as a binding precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. That apart, the facts here are entirely different inasmuch as the petitioner was granted regularization of service which, he accepted without raising any demur that the period of service rendered by him from 21^st December 1987 ought to be counted for the purpose of entitlement to pensionary benefits.

¶22

7. We find no reason to take a view different from the one taken by the Tribunal in the impugned order. The writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.

¶23

(M. S. KARNIK, J.)

¶24

(CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶25

Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL GANESH GANESH KULKARNI KULKARNI Date: 2022.07.14 17:57:52 +0530

¶26

Rajvilas Raosaheb More v. the State of Maharashtra Thru Dy. Secretary, Home Dept. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajvilas Raosaheb More v. the State of Maharashtra Thru Dy. Secretary, Home Dept. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhagalram Bijaniya vs Aym Syntex Limited

Santosh Bhavji Jaware and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Principal Secretary and Ors.

Anand R.Adole Vs the Secretary, Government of India (Office of Inspector General) Ministry of Home Affairs and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra Thru Secretary, Higher and Technical Edu. Dept. and Anr. Vs Shri. Yeshwant Maruti Patil and Ors.

Ganesh Pawar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ram Popat Rwalu Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Home Dept. and Ors.