Dismissed

Rahul S/O Ramnarayan Madankar and Another v. the New India Assurance Company Limited, Mumbai Thr. Its Manager and Others

Bombay HC19 Aug 2023WP/5560/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismissed a writ petition regarding a claim for compassionate appointment. The court held that because the employee's voluntary retirement was formally accepted after crossing the age of 55, the Scheme's requirement for retirement before 55 was not met, justifying the denial of the claim. An order to pay unpaid dues was also passed.

What did the court decide?

Payment of any outstanding dues of the petitioner no.2 to be examined by respondents and paid within three months.

Rahul S/O Ramnarayan Madankar and Another Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

35-WP-5560-2021.odt 1

¶2

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

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.5560 of 2021

¶4

Rahul Ramnarayan Madankar and another

¶5

vs.

¶6

The New India Assurance Company Limited, Mumbai-400 001 thru. its Manager & others.

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order

¶8

Shri Atul J. Pathak, Advocate for petitioner. Shri B. P. Bhatt, Advocate for respondents.

¶9

CORAM :- A.S.CHANDURKAR AND MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ. DATE :- 19^th AUGUST, 2023

¶10

P. C.

¶11

Heard.

¶12

The petitioner no.2 was in employment with the respondent no.3-Regional Office of the New India Assurance Company Limited, Nagpur on the post of ‘Assistant Clerk cum Cashier’. The petitioner no.2 made an application for seeking voluntary retirement on 22.07.2015. Alongwith the said application, the petitioner no.2 annexed the copy of the Medical Certificate signed by the Civil Surgeon, General Hospital, Gondia dated 21.07.2015 indicating his unfitness for further service. According to the petitioner no.2, he wanted his son to be considered for appointment on compassionate basis under Clause 1.1(b) of the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment in Public Sector General Insurance Companies (for short, the Scheme) which benefit was admissible if an employee retired on medical grounds before the age of 55. Hence such application for seeking voluntary retirement was moved on 22.07.2015 prior to attaining the age of 55 years.

¶13

The request for appointment of the petitioner no.1 on compassionate ground has been refused by the respondents on the ground that the petitioner no.2 retired on medical ground after attaining the age of 55 years.

¶14

35-WP-5560-2021.odt 2

¶15

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. Clause 1.1 of the Scheme reads as under:

¶16

“1.1 : To a dependent family member of permanent employee of a Public Sector General Insurance Company (PSGIC) who-

¶17

(a) Dies while in service (including death by suicide). OR

¶18

(b) Is retired on medical grounds due to incapacitation before reaching the age of 55 years. (incapacitation is to be certified by a duly appointed Medical Board in a Government Medical College / Government District Head Quarters Hospitals / Panel of Doctors nominated by the Company for the purpose).”

¶19

It is not in dispute that alongwith application dated 22.07.2015 seeking voluntary retirement, the petitioner no.2 annexed Medical Certificate signed by the Civil Surgeon, General Hospital, Gondia dated 21.07.2015. This certificate does not satisfy the requirements as prescribed by Clause 1.1 of the Scheme. Under the said Clause a certificate ought to be issued by a duly appointed Medical Board. In the reply filed by the respondents, it has been specifically stated that the petitioner no.2 was called upon to submit all relevant documents in support of his application for voluntary retirement. It is only on 10.02.2016 that the petitioner no.2 could obtain a Medical Certificate from the Medical Board as prescribed by Clause 1.1 of the Scheme. However, in the meanwhile the petitioner no.2 had crossed the age of 55 years. The petitioner no.2 was thereafter relieved by accepting his voluntary retirement application on 31.05.2016.

¶20

In view of aforesaid, we do not find that the denial by the respondents to appoint the petitioner no.1 on compassionate basis is contrary to the Scheme in question. The petitioner no.2’s application for seeking voluntary retirement having been accepted after the age of 55 years, no fault can be found with the denial of compassionate

¶21

35-WP-5560-2021.odt 3

¶22

appointment to the petitioner no.1.

¶23

The writ petition is therefore dismissed. No costs.

¶24

At this stage, it is submitted that the entire dues of the petitioner no.2 pursuant to acceptance of his request for voluntary retirement have not been paid. The respondents shall examine the aforesaid aspect and in case any dues are found to be outstanding, the same shall be paid to the petitioner no.2. Necessary steps in that regard be taken within a period of three months from today.

¶25

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

¶26

Andurkar.

¶27

Digitally Signed byJAYANT SUDHAKAR ANDURKAR Personal Assistant Signing Date: 21.08.2023 10:21

Rahul S/O Ramnarayan Madankar and Another v. the New India Assurance Company Limited, Mumbai Thr. Its Manager and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul S/O Ramnarayan Madankar and Another v. the New India Assurance Company Limited, Mumbai Thr. Its Manager 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

Dr. Rajendra Ramchandra Chaudhari Vs Maharashtra Public Service Commission, Mumbai through Secretary and Another

Smt. Anusaya Balkisan Bhende Since (Died) Thr. Her Lrs. Harishchandra Uttamrao Ingale Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Collector, Amravati and Others

Abdul Kalim Abdul Hafiz Sheikh Vs Government of Maha., Thr. Its Planning Department, Mumbai and Ors.

Yogesh Remchandra Pathre and Others Vs the Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and Others

Sandhya Prakash Todewar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through the Collector, Chandrapur and Others

The Commissioner of Customs, Nagpur Vs M/S. Excellent Betelnut Products Pvt. Ltd.,Mumbai, Thr. Its Director