Partly allowed

Nagnath Chandarrao Suryatal and Others v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Chief Secretary and Others

Bombay HC1 Feb 2023WP/1231/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition contended for the inclusion of a notional annual increment in pension calculations. The court held the case covered by a prior Bombay HC judgment and allowed the petition, directing the State to grant benefits calculated over three years prior to filing.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondents to grant pensionary benefits calculated from three years preceding the filing of the petitions.

Nagnath Chandarrao Suryatal and Others Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

912 WP1231.2023.odt

¶3

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

¶4

912 WRIT PETITION NO.1231 OF 2023

¶5

NAGNATH CHANDARRAO SURYATAL AND OTHERS VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY AND OTHERS

¶7

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Y. B. Bolkar, h/f Mr. K. B. Jadhav. AGP for Respondent/State: Mr. S. K. Tambe.

¶8

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE : 01^st February, 2023.

¶9

Per Court:

¶10

In this petition, the issue that has been raised by the petitioners is as regards the notional addition of an annual increment, while computing their pension and pensionary benefits. Such increment became due and payable on the last day before their superannuation, on completion of one year service.

¶11

The petitioners have superannuated on the 30^th day of June of the particular year, as they were due for superannuation. For the sake of clarity, the names of the petitioners and their date of superannuation are mentioned in the chart hereunder:-

¶12

Sr. No.	Name	Date of retirement
1	Nagnath S/o Chandarrao Suryatal	30.06.2021

¶13

¶14

912 WP1231.2023.odt

¶15

Sr. No.	Name	Date of retirement
2	Nathu S/o Gangaram Bhosle	30.06.2021
3	Gangadhar S/o Dashrath Paikrao	30.06.2021
4	Uttam S/o Kondiba Hanmante	30.06.2020
5	Vikram S/o Shama Rathod	30.06.2019
6	Asharam S/o Venkatrao Jadhav	30.06.2019
7	Shri Maroti S/o Shankar Bhole	30.06.2019
8	Govind S/o Bhujangrao Mangnale	30.06.2017
9	Mohammad Kasim Mohammad Ali	30.06.2016
10	Shaikh Ahemad Shaikh Nawab	30.06.2016
11	Mudassirkhan Muzamilkhan Pathan	30.06.2016
12	Gangadhar S/o Manikrao Ingle	30.06.2012
13	Jairam S/o Kerba Sonkamble	30.06.2012
14	Prabhakar S/o Shankarrao Jondhale	30.06.2011
15	Mahemudkhan Hasankhan Pathan	30.06.2011

¶16

The issue raised in this petition is no longer res-integra in the light of the judgment delivered by the Madras High Court on 15.09.2017 in Writ Petition No.15732/2017 filed by P. Ayyamperumal Vs. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal and others , which has been sustained by the Honourable Supreme Court. This Court (Coram : Ravindra V. Ghuge and Anil L. Pansare, JJ.) has also delivered the judgment dated 23.06.2022 in Writ Petition No.6256/2022 filed by Changdeo Genuji Dudhat and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others and connected petitions. We have corrected paragraph 10 of our judgment dated 23.06.2022 vide order dated 13.07.2022.

¶17

¶18

912 WP1231.2023.odt

¶19

In view of the above, the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the said order dated 23.06.2022 and they stand entitled for the benefits as ordered in paragraph 9 and corrected paragraph 10 of the order dated 23.06.2022 in Changdeo Genuji Dudhat (supra) , which read as under :-

¶20

“9. It is quite apparent that the judgment delivered by the Madras High Court in P.Ayyamperumal (supra), became a cause for these petitioners to approach this Court. None of them had challenged the noninclusion of the annual increment in their pensionary benefits for calculation purposes, when they superannuated on 30th June of a particular year. As the judgment delivered in P. Ayyamperumal (supra) became known to all, that these petitioners have approached this Court. Some of the petitioners have superannuated in between 2016 and 2021.

¶21

Considering these aspects, we are of the view that the arrears of such benefits as granted by us in paragraph 9 hereinabove, could be restricted for a reasonable period. As such, these petitioners would be entitled for the arrears of such benefits for a period of three years preceding the dates of their filing of the writ petitions or as per actuals, whichever is less. We direct the payment of such arrears accordingly and expect such payment to be made to these petitioners, on or before 30.08.2022.”

¶22

As such, this petition is partly allowed.

¶23

¶24

912 WP1231.2023.odt

¶25

The respondents would grant benefits to the petitioners as directed in paragraphs 9 and 10 (reproduced above) of Changdeo

¶26

Genuji Dudhat (supra) , on or before 30.04.2023.

¶27

[ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ] [ RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ]

¶28

nga

Nagnath Chandarrao Suryatal and Others v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Chief Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagnath Chandarrao Suryatal and Others v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Chief Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajan Anna Lengde and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Others

Prakash Narayan Khandelwal Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Others

Monali Arun Bothe Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Minister and Others

Suhas Rupchandrarao Paturkar Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Others

Nandkumar Marutirao Muley Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Ashlesha Umakant Pawar Vs the Union of India through the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department and Others