Partly allowed

Ismail Shaikh Shaikh Burhan and Another v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Bombay HC9 Feb 2023WP/1587/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought notional addition of annual increment for pension. Court held that based on precedents, benefits are restricted to the three years preceding the filing of petitions or as per actuals, whichever is less.

What did the court decide?

Benefit granted by analogy of Channgedo Genuji case, restricted to arrears for 3 years preceding the filing of writ petitions.

Ismail Shaikh Shaikh Burhan and Another Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

907-917 WP.1572.2023 ORS.odt

¶3

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

¶4

907 WRIT PETITION NO.1572 OF 2023

¶5

MOHAMMAD YUNUS SHARIF SHAIKH VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS

¶7

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek C. Deshpande. AGP for Respondent/State: Mr. S. G. Karlekar.

¶8

AND

¶9

908 WRIT PETITION NO.1573 OF 2023

¶10

KALEEMUDDIN AZIZUDDIN VERSUS

¶11

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS

¶12

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek C. Deshpande. AGP for Respondent/State: Mr. S. G. Sangle.

¶13

AND

¶14

909 WRIT PETITION NO.1582 OF 2023

¶15

SHAIKH ZAKIRUDDIN ISHAQUDDIN AND OTHERS VERSUS

¶16

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS

¶17

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Abhishek C. Deshpande. AGP for Respondent/State: Mr. V. M. Kagne.

¶18

AND

¶19

910 WRIT PETITION NO.1583 OF 2023

¶20

DINKAR MAHARU MAHAJAN

¶21

VERSUS

¶22

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

¶23

¶24

907-917 WP.1572.2023 ORS.odt

¶25

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Sandeep B. Sontakke. AGP for Respondent/State: Mr. S. K. Tambe.

¶26

AND

¶27

911 WRIT PETITION NO.1584 OF 2023

¶28

PATHAN AHMAD KHAN MIYAN KHAN AND OTHERS VERSUS

¶29

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS

¶30

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Abhishek C. Deshpande. AGP for Respondent/State: Mr. S. G. Karlekar.

¶31

AND

¶32

912 WRIT PETITION NO.1585 OF 2023

¶33

MAHADU SANDU BANGALE VERSUS

¶34

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

¶35

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Sandeep B. Sontakke. AGP for Respondent/State: Mr. S. G. Sangle.

¶36

AND

¶37

913 WRIT PETITION NO.1586 OF 2023

¶38

ASHOK FULCHAND MORE AND ANOTHER VERSUS

¶39

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

¶40

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Sandeep B. Sontakke. AGP for Respondent/State: Mr. V. M. Kagne.

¶41

¶42

907-917 WP.1572.2023 ORS.odt

¶43

AND

¶44

914 WRIT PETITION NO.1587 OF 2023

¶45

ISMAIL SHAIKH S/O SHAIKH BURHAN AND ANOTHER

¶46

VERSUS

¶47

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

¶48

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Sandeep B. Sontakke. AGP for Respondent/State: Mr. S. K. Tambe.

¶49

AND

¶50

915 WRIT PETITION NO.1588 OF 2023

¶51

JAGDISHCHANDRA S/O GULABCHAND VARMA

¶52

VERSUS

¶53

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

¶54

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Sandeep B. Sontakke. AGP for Respondent/State: Mr. S. G. Karlekar.

¶55

AND

¶56

916 WRIT PETITION NO.1589 OF 2023

¶57

SHASHIKMUAR RAMRAO DESHPANDE AND OTHERS

¶58

VERSUS

¶59

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

¶60

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Sandeep B. Sontakke. AGP for Respondent/State: Mr. S. G. Sangle.

¶61

AND

¶62

917 WRIT PETITION NO.1592 OF 2023

¶63

DR. KARUNA BHIVAJI GHOBLE

¶64

VERSUS

¶65

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS

¶66

¶67

907-917 WP.1572.2023 ORS.odt

¶68

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek C. Deshpande. AGP for Respondent/State: Mr. V. M. Kagne.

¶69

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE : 09^th February, 2023.

¶70

Per Court:

¶71

In these petitions, 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.

¶72

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 dates of superannuation are mentioned in the chart hereunder :-

¶73

Sr. No.	Writ Petition No.	Name	Date of retirement
1	1572 / 2023	Mohammad Yunus Sharif Shaikh	30.06.2019
2	1573 / 2023	Kaleemuddin Azizuddin	30.06.2017
3	1582 / 2023	Shaikh Zakiruddin Ishaquddin	30.06.2021
4	1582 / 2023	Siddiqui Altaf Mohiuddin Siddiqui Md. Ghousuddin	30.06.2022
5	1582 / 2023	Anees Jahan Abdul Wahab	30.06.2021
6	1583 / 2023	Dinkar Maharu Mahajan	30.06.2022

¶74

¶75

907-917 WP.1572.2023 ORS.odt

¶76

Sr. No.	Writ Petition No.	Name	Date of retirement
7	1584 / 2023	Pathan Ahmad Khan Miyan Khan	30.06.2019
8	1584 / 2023	Mohammad Ashfaque Shaikh Rehman	30.06.2022
9	1584 / 2023	Shaikh Abdul Gaffar Mohammad Subhan	30.06.2022
10	1585 / 2023	Mahadu Sandu Bangale	30.06.2011
11	1586 / 2023	Ashok Fulchand More	30.06.2019
12	1586 / 2023	Abdul Salim Abdul Raheman Shaikh	30.06.2021
13	1587 / 2023	Ismail Shaikh S/o Shaikh Burhan	30.06.2013
14	1587 / 2023	Padmakar S/o Rangrao Kulkarni	30.06.2020
15	1588 / 2023	Jagdishchandra S/o Gulabchand Varma	30.06.2010
16	1589 / 2023	Shashikmuar Ramrao Deshpande	30.06.2011
17	1589 / 2023	Rangnath S/o Dnyanoba Ghatul	30.06.2016
18	1589 / 2023	Ansari Abdul Naeem Abdul Kareem	30.06.2013
19	1589 / 2023	Balasaheb S/o Shriram Shahane	30.06.2013
20	1589 / 2023	Mohan S/o Balvantaro Kulkarni	30.06.2012
21	1592 / 2023	Dr. Karuna Bhivaji Ghoble	30.06.2022

¶77

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

¶78

¶79

907-917 WP.1572.2023 ORS.odt

¶80

dated 13.07.2022.

¶81

The learned AGPs strenuously submit that this Court may consider the delay and laches on the part of the petitioners in approaching this Court. They further submit that no litigant can take advantage of his own wrong. Delay and laches ought not to benefit the petitioners by grant of arrears.

¶82

We find that the several litigants, as like the petitioners have started approaching this Court after the judgment of the Madras High Court in P. Ayyamperumal (supra) and subsequent orders passed by the Aurangabad Bench, the Principal Seat and the Nagpur Bench. Since the judgment of the Madras High Court led to the Special Leave Petition before the Honourable Supreme Court, which settled the law on this point by sustaining the judgment of the Madras High Court, this Court has also delivered several judgments, which have also been sustained by the Honourable Supreme Court. To balance the equities, this Court has granted arrears only for 3 years from the date of the filing of the petition or as per actuals, whichever is less.

¶83

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

¶84

¶85

907-917 WP.1572.2023 ORS.odt

¶86

paragraph 10 of the order dated 23.06.2022 in Changdeo Genuji

¶87

Dudhat (supra) , which read as under :-

¶88

“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.

¶89

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.”

¶90

As such, these petitions are partly allowed.

¶91

The respondents would grant benefits to the petitioners as

¶92

directed in paragraphs 9 and 10 (reproduced above) of Changdeo

¶93

Genuji Dudhat (supra) , to be paid within 3 months from today.

¶94

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

¶95

nga

Ismail Shaikh Shaikh Burhan and Another v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ismail Shaikh Shaikh Burhan and Another v. the State of Maharashtra through Its 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

Vithoba Bhau Ghadge Vs State of Maha and Ors.

Rajendra Bhausaheb Chattar Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Suvarna Lakshimanrao Kisve Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Department of High and Technical Education and Others

Karuna Bhivaji Ghoble Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary and Others

Ashok Fulchand More and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Jagdishchandra Gulabchandra Varma Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others