Allowed

Asha Girdharilal Karhade v. Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and Others

Bombay HC2 Aug 2023WP/3113/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged discontinuation of additional increment in family pension of her deceased husband who opted for voluntary retirement before 4th September 2018. Court relied on precedents to hold benefits must continue if entitlement existed prior to 4th September 2018 and set aside the order. Zilla Parishad directed to restore benefits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned communication dated 20/2/2020 set aside; Zilla Parishad directed to restore additional increment in family pension along with graduation within six weeks.

Asha Girdharilal Karhade Vs Divisional… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

Judgment

¶2

WP-3113-2021

¶3

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 3113 OF 2021

¶6

Asha Girdharilal Karhade,
aged about 52 years, Occ. Household,
R/o Adarsh Colony, behind Panjabi Saw Mill,
Tq. Goregaon, District – Gondia.

¶7

 PETITIONER

¶8

.....VERSUS..…

¶9

1. Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur, Division – Nagpur, Tq. and Dist. Nagpur.

¶10

2. Zilla Parishad, Gondia, through its Chief Executive Officer, Gondia, Tq. and Dist. Nagpur.

¶11

3. Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Gondia, Tq. and Dist. Nagpur.

¶12

4. Chief Accounts and Finance Officer, Zilla Parishad, Gondia, Tq. and Dist. Gondia.

¶13

RESPONDENTS

¶14

Shri A.R. Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶15

Shri A.A. Madiwale, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.1.
Shri Abhijit Parihar, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 to 4.

¶16

CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKARAND MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : AUGUST 2, 2023

¶17

ORAL JUDGMENT:(PER : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.)

¶18

RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the

¶19

learned counsel for the parties.

¶20

2]The husband of the petitioner was selected to receive the
District Award in the year 2006. The benefits thereof came to be received

¶21

by him during his lifetime. He opted for voluntary retirement for medical

¶22

WP-3113-20212Judgment

¶23

reasons on 13/7/2017. He expired on 16/10/2017 after which the
petitioner started receiving family pension. By the impugned
communication dated 20/2/2020, the additional increment that was
being received by virtue of her husband receiving the District Award came
to be discontinued on the ground that it was not permitted to be so
granted in view of the recommendations of the 6th pay commission. The
petitioner is presently receiving family pension without the benefit of that
additional increment. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has challenged the
said impugned communication.

¶24

3]After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and after
perusing the documents on record, we find that the issue with regard to
discontinuing the benefit of additional increment in the light of
recommendations of the 6th pay commission is settled and the
Government Resolution dated 24/8/2017 does not seek to withdraw such
benefits received earlier. In Sanjay Ramkrushan Waghmare & Ors. Vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. [Writ Petition No. 5419/2018 decided on
14/2/2019] this Court has held that such benefits are liable to be
continued since the entitlement to receive the same is prior to 4/9/2018.
Hence, for the reasons recorded in the order passed in Sharad Pawar &
Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. [Writ Petition No. 625/2016
decided on 17/11/2017] as well as the judgment in Sanjay Ramkrushan
Waghmare & Ors. (supra), the following order is passed :

¶25

Judgment

¶26

WP-3113-2021

¶27

¶28

ORDER

¶29

i]The communication dated 20/2/2020 issued by the
Education Officer (Primary) is set aside. The Zilla Parishad is directed to
restore the benefit of additional increment along with family pension as
was being done prior to issuance of the impugned communication.
Necessary consequential steps be taken within a period of six weeks of
receiving copy of the judgment.

¶30

ii]Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order

¶31

as to costs.

¶32

(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.)

¶33

Sumit

Asha Girdharilal Karhade v. Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asha Girdharilal Karhade v. Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pma Construction Co. Nagpur Vs U. O. I. Ministry of Road Transport and High Way, Thr. the Chief Engineer and Reg. Officer and Ors.

Smt. Veena Wd/O Pradip Wankhade and Others Vs Sant Gadage Baba Amravati University (Earlier Knowns as Amravati University)Thr. Registrar

Aai Tuljabhavani Matsya and Zinga Vyavsay Co-Op. So. Ltd., Thr.President, R.M. Rathod Vs State of Maha., Thr. Secretary of Animal Husbandary, Dairy Dev. and Dept. of Fisheries and Others

Ashwini W/O Suraj Wankhede Vs Election Commission of India, New Delhi and Others

National Cons. Environment and Forest Prot. Forum Thr. President, Manishsingh M. Chauhan Vs Mr.Ashwin Mudgal, Collector, Nagpur and Others

Khemraj Sadashiv Ratnapure Vs Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and Others