R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.: - The petitioner challenges the communication dated 18.3.2000 by which the petitioner's claim for pensionary benefit has been rejected. The petitioner further seeks directions to the respondents to grant him all the pensionary benefits along with interest thereon.

2. The petitioner was appointed and worked as Urdu Primary Teacher in the school run by the Respondent No.1 from 20 - 9 - 1955 to 17 - 9 - 1965. The petitioner thereafter was promoted as Education Extension Officer (Urdu) and on 4 - 1 - 1978, due to some personal problem, the petitioner resigned from the said post. In all, the petitioner rendered 22 years of continuous service and as it exceeds minimum period of ten years, the petitioner claimed pensionary benefit. The petitioner sought two reliefs in that regard, consequent to the decision delivered by this Court on 18 - 12 - 1998 in the matter of some other persons. The claim, however, was rejected by the respondents on the ground that the petitioner had not retired from the service but the petitioner had resigned from the service and in terms of the law in force at the relevant time, he was not entitled to claim pensionary benefit. Hence the present petition.

3. The fact that the petitioner had resigned on 4 - 1 - 1978 is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that under the relevant provisions of law in force at the relevant time, there was no specific provision entitling the person resigning from the service to claim pensionary benefit. The contention on behalf of the petitioner, however, is that the resignation tantamounts to voluntary retirement and, therefore, since the respondents have granted pensionary benefit to the persons who have voluntarily retired and there being specific resolution ensuring the right to pensionary benefit for those who take voluntary retirement, the same principle should apply to the case of voluntary retirement by the employee. So applying the same principle, the petitioner also should be granted pensionary benefit. Attention is drawn to G.R. dated 21 - 7 - 1983 in that regard. Reliance is also sought to be placed upon the decisions in the matters of Cedi Dennis Solomon and another f Vs. Reserve Bank of India and another, I reported in (2002(2) Mh.L.J. 956); M/s. J. K. Cotton Spg. And Wvg. Mills Company Ltd., Kanpur Vs. State of U. P. and others, reported in (AIR 1990 SC 1808); Union of India and others Vs. Col. P. S. Bhargava reported in (AIR 1997 SC 565) and Trimbak s/o. Sangramappa Kadge Vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors. reported in (2002(4) ALL MR 114).

4. On the other hand, the learned AGP submitted that the relevant rules regarding pensionary benefit, which would be applicable to the matter in hand, would be the rules which were prevalent on the day on which the petitioner had resigned. At the relevant time there was no provision for grant of pensionary benefit to those employees who had resigned from the service and, therefore, the petitioner's claim cannot be entertained. Drawing attention to the decision in the matter of UCO Bank and others Vs. San war Mal, reported in (AIR 2004 SC 2135), it was submitted that the G.R. of 1983 cannot be applied to the petitioner's case, as the same was issued much after the date of resignation by the petitioner and in that connection reliance was placed in the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Baburam Vs. C. C. Jacob and others, reported in (AIR. 1999 SC 1845). She has further submitted that though the petitioner resigned in the year 1978, the present petition has been filed nearly 22 years after his resignation without any justification for laches. Hence, the petition should be dismissed. Reference has also been made to Rule 46 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 which provides that "Resignation from a service or a post entails forfeiture of past service" and, therefore, it was submitted that the claim for pensionary benefit is not maintainable.

5. As alrea

Click Here to Read the rest of this document